Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012-0056
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-05-23T04:00Z

Assessment
of
Potential
Costs,
Benefits
and
Other
Impacts
For
the
Proposed
Revised
Standards
Applicable
to
Generators
of
Hazardous
Waste;
Subpart
K
­
Academic
Laboratories
Final
Report
Economics,
Methods,
and
Risk
Analysis
Division
Office
of
Solid
Waste
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
April
7,
2006
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The
EPA
recognizes
DPRA
Incorporated
(
E­
1500
First
National
Bank
Building
332
Minnesota
Street,
St.
Paul,
Minnesota
55101)
for
the
overall
organization
and
development
of
this
report.
DPRA
developed
the
methodology,
database,
and
analytical
model
that
allowed
for
the
comprehensive
analyses
of
the
regulatory
scenarios
presented
in
this
report.
Rachel
Alford
and
Lyn
D.
Luben
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
provided
guidance
and
review.
ii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
2.0
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.1
Background
and
Purpose
of
Rulemaking
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.2
Need
For
Regulatory
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
2
2.3
Scope
of
Study
and
Data
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
10
2.4
Limitations
of
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
10
3.0
POST­
SECONDARY
ACADEMIC
LABORATORIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
3.1
Four­
Year
Colleges
and
Universities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
3.2
Two­
Year
Colleges
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
4
3.3
Vocational
Schools
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
5
3.4
Overview
of
Potentially
Affected
Colleges
and
Universities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
7
4.0
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
GENERATION
AND
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
1
4.1
Overview
of
Colleges
and
Universities
Modeled
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
1
4.2
General
Model
Assumptions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
2
4.3
Annualization
Methodology
of
Before­
Tax
Compliance
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
8
4.4
Cost
Model
Unit
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
9
4.5
Summary
Tables
Presenting
Baseline
Impact
and
Incremental
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
20
5.0
COST
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
1
5.1
Aggregate
Cost
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
1
5.2
Average
College
and
University
Cost
Impacts
As
a
Percent
of
Revenue
.
.
.
.
.
5­
7
5.3
Expected
Adoption
Rates
and
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
7
5.4
Aggregate
Cost
Impacts
Under
Regulatory
Options
A
and
B
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
11
5.5
Impacts
on
State
Governments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
18
6.0
QUALITATIVE
BENEFITS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
1
7.0
OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE
REQUIREMENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7­
1
Appendix
A
 
Impact
Tables
Corresponding
With
the
High
College
and
University
Hazardous
Waste
Generation
Estimate
Appendix
B
 
Impact
Tables
Corresponding
With
a
Three
Percent
Discount
Rate
for
Annualizing
Costs
Appendix
C
 
Small
Business
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
REFERENCES
1­
1
1.0
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
Economic
Assessment
(
EA)
was
conducted
to
determine
the
potential
impacts
of
the
EPA's
proposal
to
revise
rules
regarding
the
management
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
college
and
university
laboratories,
as
well
as
to
evaluate
alternatives
to
the
chosen
approach.
The
analysis
was
conducted
per
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993)
as
amended
by
Executive
Order
13258
(
68
FR
9385,
February
28,
2002),
which
requires
that
regulatory
agencies
evaluate
whether
a
new
regulation
potentially
constitutes
a
significant
regulatory
action.

Under
Section
3(
f)(
1)
of
Executive
Order
12866,
the
EPA
is
required
to
make
an
initial
determination
regarding
whether
any
proposed
regulatory
action
constitutes
a
significant
regulatory
action.
Based
on
the
findings
presented
in
this
report,
we
believe
that
this
regulatory
action,
as
proposed,
does
constitute
a
significant
regulatory
action
because
it
raises
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
and
the
principles
set
forth
in
Executive
Order
12866.

The
proposed
rulemaking
changes
a
number
of
requirements
regarding
the
management
of
hazardous
waste.
EPA
is
proposing
this
optional
generator
requirement
(
in
Part
262
Subpart
K)
to
provide
a
more
flexible
and
protective
set
of
regulations
that
address
the
unique
nature
of
hazardous
waste
generation
in
college
and
university
laboratories.
One
of
the
main
purposes
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
is
to
provide
colleges
and
universities
the
discretion
to
make
the
hazardous
waste
(
HW)
determination
for
unwanted
materials
generated
in
the
laboratory
at
a
location
other
than
the
laboratory
and
at
a
time
after
its
initial
generation.
The
proposed
rule
also
specifies
additional
performance­
based
standards
for
waste
accumulation,
labeling
prior
to
HW
determination,
personnel
training
requirements
and
container
management.
The
proposal
also
requires
that
colleges
and
universities
develop
a
laboratory
management
plan,
specifying
how
the
colleges
and
universities
will
comply
with
the
performance­
based
standards.
Finally,
to
encourage
more
frequent
laboratory
cleanouts
of
unwanted
and
unused
materials
from
laboratories,
the
rule
excludes
these
wastes
in
determining
RCRA
generator
status,
under
certain
guidelines.

The
Agency
has
identified
a
total
of
1,811
colleges
and
universities
in
operation
in
the
U.
S.,
which
generate
laboratory
wastes
and
may
be
affected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking.
Of
this
total,
333
are
large
quantity
generators
(
LQGs)
and
1,478
are
small
quantity
generators
(
SQGs).
The
proposed
rule
is
optional,
which
means
that
individual
colleges
and
universities
may
choose
to
be
regulated
under
Subpart
K,
or
continue
to
operate
under
existing
regulations.
Furthermore,
because
the
rule
is
optional,
states
with
authority
to
administer
the
RCRA
program
may
adopt
the
proposed
rule
(
when
it
is
finalized)
or
continue
to
rely
on
existing
rules.
Because
the
rule
is
optional,
we
believe
only
some
states
will
adopt
the
rule,
and
additionally
colleges
and
universities
will
only
choose
to
be
subject
to
the
rule
if
it
is
deemed
to
be
in
their
interest.
For
purposes
of
the
EA,
it
is
assumed
that
only
colleges
and
universities
that
would
experience
a
reduction
in
hazardous
waste
management
costs
would
choose
to
be
subject
to
the
rule.

In
order
to
estimate
impacts,
model
colleges
and
universities
were
developed
based
on
information
regarding
various
factors
including
number
of
laboratories,
whether
the
college
or
university
used
a
1
Email
Re:
FW:
EPA
Laboratory
Waste
Management
rule
to
Craig
Simons
of
DPRA
from
Dr.
Bruce
Backus,
Assistant
Vice
Chancellor,
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
at
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis,
August
1,
2005;
Email
Re:
ISU
Cost
Estimates
to
Rachel
Alford,
EPA
from
William
M.
Diesslin
CHMM,
CSP,
Assistant
Director
Dept.
of
Environmental
Health
&
Safety,
Iowa
State
University,
May
16,
2005.

2
For
example
numerous
SQGs
generated
substantially
less
than
1,200
kilograms,
implying
that
hazardous
waste
generated
during
one
or
more
particular
months
exceeded
100
kilograms,
forcing
them
into
the
SQG
status
for
those
months.
The
assumption
made
was
that
this
was
due,
at
least
in
some
cases,
to
hazardous
waste
generated
during
laboratory
clean­
outs,
and
consequently
the
college
or
university
may
benefit
from
a
lower
RCRA
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
Similarly,
and
especially
important
for
LQGs
generating
less
than
1,000
kg
of
hazardous
waste
each
month,
hazardous
wastes
generated
during
laboratory
clean­
outs
were
assumed
to
include
acute
toxic
(
especially
P)
wastes;
while
a
thorough
analysis
of
biennial
report
data
was
inconclusive
1­
2
90/
180
day
hazardous
waste
storage
area
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
a
central
accumulation
area
(
CAA))
for
accumulating
hazardous
wastes
generated
at
individual
laboratories,
and
RCRA
HW
generator
status.
Under
baseline
conditions,
it
was
assumed
that
environmental
health
and
safety
(
EH&
S)
personnel
travel
to
the
laboratories
to
make
the
HW
determination;
accordingly
one
of
the
major
cost
savings
was
in
travel
time
associated
with
going
to
the
laboratories.
An
alternative
management
scenario
practiced
by
numerous
colleges
and
universities
is
having
EH&
S
personnel
(
or
equivalent)
at
the
laboratories
to
make
the
hazardous
waste
determination.
While
this
alternative
scenario
was
not
costed,
the
expected
savings
would
have
been
associated
with
reductions
in
personnel
training
(
rather
than
travel),
effectively
requiring
fewer
EH&
S
personnel
to
make
the
HW
determination.
Other
major
costs
expected
to
be
incurred
by
the
colleges
and
universities
that
choose
to
be
subject
to
Subpart
K
include
costs
for
the
development
and
maintenance
of
LMPs
and,
additional
costs
associated
with
labeling
prior
to
having
waste
sent
from
the
laboratories
to
the
CAA.
While
the
proposed
rule
specifies
certain
personnel
training
requirements,
these
costs
are
not
believed
to
be
significant,
since
industry
contacts
indicated
that
the
colleges
and
universities,
as
part
of
their
existing
policies,
already
have
significant
training
requirements
for
laboratory,
EH&
S
and
other
personnel
similar
to
those
in
the
proposed
rule.
Based
on
contacts1,
typical
practices
are
believed
to
include
basic
classroom
instruction
for
students,
which
addresses
EPA
requirements
for
HW
management.
This
instruction
is
repeated
for
each
course
taken
that
generates
hazardous
waste.
Laboratory
workers
who
are
college
and
university
employees
typically
receive
several
hours
of
formal
training
on
specific
OSHA
and
EPA
requirements,
in
either
classroom
or
on­
line
sessions,
with
additional
laboratory­
specific
training
provided
by
the
laboratory
supervisor.
EH&
S
personnel
also
are
required
to
undergo
initial
training,
with
annual
refresher
courses
covering
OSHA
and
EPA
topics.
The
equivalent
would
need
RCRA
training
to
complete
hazardous
waste
identifications.

Because
the
proposed
rule
specifies
that
hazardous
waste
generated
during
laboratory
clean­
outs
(
up
to
one
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
12­
month
period)
will
not
count
toward
generator
status,
assumptions
were
made
that
a
number
of
colleges
and
universities
would
benefit
from
this
clause
and
be
able
to
maintain
a
lower
HW
generator
status
(
e.
g.,
moving
from
LQG
to
SQG).
Hazardous
waste
data
from
the
biennial
reporting
system
indicated
that
a
number
of
colleges
and
universities
generated
hazardous
waste
on
an
annual
basis
that
was
substantially
less
than
100
kg
for
SQGs
and
1,000
kg
for
LQGs.
2
Additionally,
some
LQGs
may
only
be
LQGs
due
to
acute
toxic
wastes,
which
may
be
because
P
wastes
were
frequently
mingled
with
other
wastes
so
that
definitive
quantitative
estimates
were
not
possible,
there
were
at
least
some
instances
when
P
waste
quantities
appeared
to
affect
the
generator
status
of
the
colleges
and
universities.

1­
3
generated
during
laboratory
clean­
outs.
Consequently
it
was
assumed
that
up
to
eight
percent
of
SQGs
and
30
percent
of
LQGs
would
benefit
from
a
lower
RCRA
status
under
the
rule.
These
assumptions
regarding
generator
status
changes
were
derived
with
limited
information
regarding
the
waste
generated
as
a
result
of
laboratory
clean­
outs,
and
may
not
accurately
reflect
the
actual
number
of
colleges
and
universities
which
will
ultimately
benefit
from
a
lower
generator
status.

The
total
quantity
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
the
affected
colleges
and
universities,
excluding
remediation
wastes
was
estimated
based
on
2001
biennial
reporting
data.
In
total,
the
affected
colleges
and
universities
generated
a
total
of
11,628
tons
of
hazardous
waste
during
2001.
Of
this
waste
quantity,
laboratory
hazardous
wastes
are
estimated
to
range
from
approximately
3,400
to
6,000
tons
per
year.
Only
the
management
of
laboratory­
generated
hazardous
wastes
are
affected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking.

For
purposes
of
the
EA,
estimates
are
presented
assuming
that
only
a
limited
number
of
states
codify
the
rule,
making
it
possible
for
colleges
and
universities
only
within
their
respective
states
to
be
able
to
be
subject
to
the
rule.
As
previously
noted,
the
proposed
rule
is
non­
HSWA,
leaving
states
with
jurisdiction
over
their
RCRA
program
the
option
to
adopt
the
rule
within
their
own
programs,
and
hence,
the
option
for
colleges
and
universities
to
individually
choose
to
participate
in
Subpart
K
or
remain
regulated
under
current
regulations.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis
it
is
assumed
that
states
which
have
historically
adopted
at
least
85
percent
of
RCRA
rule
changes
will
actually
adopt
the
laboratory
waste
rule
within
a
five
year
period.
This
means
that
it
is
assumed
that
29
states
and
Puerto
Rico
will
adopt
the
rule
and
21
states
will
not
adopt
the
rule.
The
percentage
of
rule
change
adoptions
is
based
on
the
number
of
required
federal
rulemakings
for
which
states
received
authorization,
divided
by
the
number
of
required
federal
rulemakings
promulgated
historically
through
June
30,
2003,
a
total
209
rulemakings.
The
Agency
is
assuming
that
states
which
have
adopted
at
least
85
percent
of
the
209
rulemakings
are
a
good
proxy
for
the
actual
number
of
states
that
will
adopt
the
proposed
laboratory
waste
rule
within
a
five
year
period.

As
a
result
of
this
assumption,
only
173
LQGs
and
666
SQGs
are
estimated
to
be
in
states
that
adopt
the
rule.
Further
limiting
the
impacts
of
the
rule
is
the
fact
that
individual
colleges
and
universities
will
have
the
opportunity
to
choose
to
be
subject
to
the
rule,
or
continue
operating
under
the
existing
rules.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis
it
is
assumed
that
only
those
colleges
and
universities
which
expect
to
experience
a
decrease
in
cost
will
actually
choose
to
be
subject
to
the
rule.
The
number
of
colleges
and
universities
expected
to
experience
a
decrease
in
cost
is
also
affected
by
assumptions
regarding
the
annual
volumes
of
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated,
which
are
estimated
to
range
3,400
to
6,000
ton
per
year.
Consequently
estimates
of
the
number
of
colleges
and
universities
expected
to
be
subject
to
the
rule
are
presented
as
a
range.
Overall
an
estimated
195
to
296
colleges
and
universities
are
expected
to
benefit
from
the
proposed
rule.
With
the
higher
estimated
waste
volume
of
6,000
tons
per
year,
only
195
colleges
and
universities
are
estimated
to
be
subject
to
the
3
Impact
estimates
presented
in
this
Executive
Summary
were
completed
using
a
seven
percent
real
discount
rate
to
annualize
costs.
An
alternative
assessment
using
a
three
percent
discount
rate
was
also
completed
indicating
modest
increases
in
annualized
cost
savings
and
numbers
of
affected
colleges
and
universities.
The
results
of
the
alternative
assessment
are
discussed
further
in
Chapter
5,
with
tabular
results
presented
in
Appendix
B.

1­
4
proposed
rule;
assuming
the
3,400
ton
waste
volume
estimate,
296
colleges
and
universities
would
choose
to
be
subject
to
the
rule.
Of
the
195
to
296
colleges
and
universities,
the
number
of
LQGs
range
from
45
to
146,
while
the
number
of
SQGs
is
150.
Colleges
and
universities
with
CAAs
are
more
likely
to
benefit
from
the
proposed
rule
than
colleges
and
universities
that
do
not
have
CAAs.

Of
the
colleges
and
universities
that
are
projected
to
benefit
from
the
rule,
99
to
107
are
also
expected
to
benefit
from
a
change
in
RCRA
generator
status.
Of
this
total,
45
to
53
LQGs
and
54
SQGs
are
expected
to
choose
to
be
subject
to
the
rule
due
in
part
to
the
projected
change
in
generator
status.

The
aggregate
annualized
cost
savings
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
are
estimated
to
range
from
$
0.6
to
$
2.9
million
for
all
colleges
and
universities
that
choose
to
be
subject
to
Subpart
K.
3
The
proposed
rule
is
intended
to
reduce
the
potential
for
environmental
releases
of
hazardous
wastes.
Under
the
proposal,
colleges
and
universities
will
develop
a
Laboratory
Management
Plan
(
LMP).
A
plan
would
create
the
flexibility
to
enable
colleges
and
universities
to
more
effectively
manage
unwanted
materials
because
it
would
be
targeted
to
the
needs
of
the
college
or
university.
In
addition
to
the
LMP,
the
proposed
rule
specifies
instruction
requirements
for
students,
and
training
requirements
for
laboratory
workers,
individuals
involved
in
the
on­
site
transportation
of
potentially
hazardous
wastes
and
individuals
making
the
hazardous
waste
determination.
Training
requirements
are
expected
to
reduce
the
potential
for
release
of
hazardous
waste.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
proposed
rule
will
also
encourage
more
frequent
clean­
outs
of
laboratories
of
unwanted
and
unused
reagents,
reducing
the
potential
for
accidental
or
mistaken
releases
into
the
environment
of
the
reagents.
The
overall
goal
is
to
promote
environmental
protection
and
public
health
through
safer
management
of
college
and
university
laboratory
hazardous
waste.
The
Agency
has
not
monetized
or
quantitatively
estimated
the
human
health
or
environmental
benefits,
but
anticipates
that
such
benefits
would
be
less
than
$
100
million
per
year.
Additional
data
are
necessary
to
make
a
firm
determination
as
to
whether
there
will
be
quantifiable
net
benefits
from
the
proposed
rule.

The
Agency
also
considered
alternative
options,
with
Option
A
being
more
stringent,
specifying
shorter
maximum
accumulation
times,
greater
time
restriction
on
allowed
exceedance
of
55
gallons
of
waste,
and
other
restrictions.
While
the
impacts
of
Option
A,
assuming
100
percent
adoption
were
much
costlier
at
$
13.4
million
than
the
proposed
rule,
the
impacts
on
the
number
of
colleges
and
universities
actually
choosing
to
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
decreased
only
slightly,
with
the
estimated
range
being
from
190
to
291
colleges
and
universities.

Alternative
Option
B
was
less
stringent
than
the
proposed
rule,
with
more
relaxed
requirements
for
LMPs,
and
the
elimination
of
notification
requirements.
The
number
of
colleges
and
universities
1­
5
choosing
to
be
subject
to
Option
B
was
estimated
to
at
681,
with
no
variation
due
different
waste
quantity
estimates.

We
also
examined
possible
impacts
associated
with
relevant
legislation
other
than
RCRA,
and
various
Executive
Orders.
These
include:
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA),
Executive
Order
13132,
(
Federalism),
Executive
Order
13045
(
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks),
Executive
Order
12898
(
Environmental
Justice),
Executive
Order
13175
(
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments),
Executive
Order
13211
(
Energy
Effects),
Executive
Order
(
Limited
English
Proficiency),
and
Regulatory
Takings.
The
proposed
rule
is
not
expected
to
result
in
significant
impacts,
as
defined
under
UMRA,
or
any
of
the
executive
orders
mentioned
above.
4
Backus,
Bruce.
1999.
Efforts
to
Deal
with
Burdensome
Impacts
of
Hazardous
Waste
Regulations
on
Research
Institutions.
Presented
at
the
17th
Annual
College
and
University
Hazardous
Waste
Conference.

2­
1
2.0
INTRODUCTION
EPA
is
proposing
alternative
generator
requirements
applicable
to
college
and
university
laboratories
which
provide
a
flexible
and
protective
set
of
regulations
that
address
the
unique
nature
of
hazardous
waste
generation
in
college
and
university
laboratories.
The
flexibility
in
the
proposed
rule
will
allow
laboratories
at
college
and
universities
the
discretion
to
determine
the
most
appropriate
and
effective
method
of
compliance
with
today's
proposed
performance­
based
requirements.
Additionally,
this
proposed
rule
grants
colleges
and
universities
the
choice
to
manage
their
hazardous
wastes
in
accordance
with
today's
alternative
set
of
regulations
or
remain
subject
to
the
existing
generator
regulations.

Executive
Order
No.
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993)
as
amended
by
Executive
Order
13258
(
68
FR
9385,
February
28,
2002)
requires
that
regulatory
agencies
determine
whether
a
new
regulation
constitutes
a
significant
regulatory
action.
A
significant
regulatory
action
is
defined
as
an
action
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:

C
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
or
C
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
or
C
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
C
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
Executive
Order
12866.

This
analysis
is
primarily
designed
to
address
the
economic
significance
of
the
proposed
rule.
To
accomplish
this,
EPA
estimated
the
costs
and
potential
economic
impacts
upon
affected
industries.

2.1
Background
and
Purpose
of
Rulemaking
The
proposed
rulemaking
addresses
the
unique
nature
of
hazardous
waste
generation
at
college
and
university
laboratories.
For
example
hazardous
wastes
generated
in
laboratories
are
typically
small
volume
wastes
involving
a
wide
variety
of
chemicals.
4
Because
there
are
so
many
wastestreams,
it
is
difficult
for
laboratory
students
to
make
the
hazardous
waste
determination.
One
of
the
main
purposes
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
is
to
provide
colleges
and
universities
the
discretion
to
make
2­
2
the
hazardous
waste
determination
for
unwanted
materials
generated
in
the
laboratory
at
a
location
other
than
the
laboratory
and
at
a
time
after
its
initial
generation.
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
proposing
that
chemicals
or
other
materials
that
are
no
longer
needed,
wanted
or
usable
in
the
laboratory
be
referred
to
as
unwanted
materials.
The
Agency
prefers
this
term
over
the
term
laboratory
waste,
which
was
used
in
the
University
Laboratories
XL,
because,
some
fraction
of
the
unwanted
materials
may
turn
out
not
to
be
solid
or
hazardous
waste.

The
proposed
rulemaking
changes
a
number
of
requirements
regarding
the
management
of
hazardous
waste.
A
summary
of
the
current
and
proposed
changes
is
presented
in
Table
2­
1.

2.2
Need
For
Regulatory
Action
Current
EPA
regulations
were
modeled
for
industrial
facilities.
College
and
university
laboratories
differ
from
industrial
applications
in
several
key
ways.
College
and
university
laboratories
generally
have
a
large
number
of
points
of
generation,
each
producing
a
small
amount
of
waste.
Very
little
hazardous
waste
in
college
and
university
laboratories
is
generated
by
individuals
professionally
trained
in
hazardous
waste
management.
Current
regulations
were
created
for
generators
with
few
wastestreams,
generating
large
quantities
of
waste,
by
employees
that
are
professionally
trained
in
hazardous
waste
management
techniques.

The
greatest
difficulty
college
and
university
laboratories
face
in
managing
hazardous
waste
under
existing
regulations
is
making
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
determination
in
the
laboratory.
Students
generating
waste
are
frequently
unqualified
to
make
this
determination.
Changes
to
the
regulations
would
provide
flexibility
in
where
the
hazardous
waste
determination
is
made,
and
yet
preserve
environmental
protection.
Specifically,
it
would
allow
the
hazardous
waste
determination
to
be
made
in
the
central
accumulation
area
or
on­
site
TSDF,
or
allow
the
hazardous
waste
determination
to
be
made
in
the
laboratory,
but
at
a
point
in
time
after
initial
generation
of
the
waste.
The
hazardous
waste
determination
would
be
performed
by
RCRA
trained
personnel.

The
proposed
changes
would
create
a
flexible,
protective
set
of
regulations
that
address
the
unique
nature
of
hazardous
waste
generation
in
college
and
university
laboratories.
The
proposal
would
allow
college
and
university
laboratories
the
discretion
to
determine
a
method
of
compliance
best
suited
to
their
circumstances,
and
promote
environmental
protection
and
public
health
through
safer
management
of
laboratory
wastes.
Specifically,
the
provision
to
develop
and
implement
a
laboratory
management
plan
would
improve
coordination
and
integration
of
hazardous
waste
management
procedures
and
enhance
environmental
awareness.
A
performance­
based
approach
would
ensure
better
environmental
results
by
facilitating
RCRA
hazardous
waste
determinations,
requiring
that
they
be
made
by
RCRA
trained
professionals.
Additionally,
this
approach
would
promote
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
by
ensuring
that
all
unwanted
materials
are
safely
managed
prior
to
the
time
that
the
hazardous
waste
determination
is
made.

The
proposed
changes
are
also
needed
to
make
explicit
the
training
requirements
for
personnel
working
in
laboratories,
including
instruction
for
students
and
training
for
laboratory
workers.
While
5National
Association
of
College
and
University
Business
Officers,
NACUBO
2005
hazardous
waste
survey,
http://
www.
nacubo.
org/
documents/
business_
topics/
HazardousWasteSurveyResults.
pdf.

2­
3
many
colleges
and
universities
already
provide
some
level
of
RCRA
training
to
minimize
risk
as
well
as
address
liability/
insurance
and
OSHA
requirements,
the
proposed
regulation
formalizes
the
requirements
to
ensure
more
universal
application.

Finally
the
proposed
rulemaking
encourages
periodic
laboratory
clean­
outs
of
unused
and
unwanted
materials.
Currently,
laboratory
clean­
outs
are
relatively
infrequent.
For
example,
a
recent
survey
by
the
National
Association
of
College
and
University
Business
Officers
indicated
that
25
percent
of
SQGs
do
no
laboratory
clean­
outs.
5
One
reason
for
this
is
that
during
a
clean­
out,
fairly
large
volumes
of
hazardous
waste
may
be
generated
at
one
time
(
as
compared
with
the
baseline
of
generation
for
that
laboratory),
including
those
listed
as
acutely
hazardous.
College
and
university
laboratories
generally
operate
as
satellite
accumulation
areas,
and
therefore
must
promptly
(
within
3
days)
remove
any
acutely
hazardous
waste
that
exceeds
one
quart
in
volume.
Furthermore,
a
generator's
status
(
as
LQG,
SQG
or
CESQG)
is
determined
in
part
by
the
volume
of
acutely
hazardous
waste
they
generate
in
a
calendar
month.
During
a
laboratory
clean­
out,
college
and
university
laboratories
may
generate
acutely
hazardous
wastes
in
relatively
large
quantities,
because
many
unused
bottles
of
reagents
are
all
at
once
deemed
to
be
hazardous
waste.
This
is
problematic
for
small
quantity
generators,
potentially
forcing
them
into
large
quantity
generator
status
with
attendant
additional
requirements
and
recordkeeping
burden.
The
proposed
rule
eliminates
the
disincentive
for
laboratory
clean­
outs
by
allowing
one
clean­
out
per
12
months
for
each
laboratory,
without
the
hazardous
waste
generated
from
the
laboratory
clean­
out
counting
toward
the
RCRA
generator
status.
2­
4
Table
2­
1.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

HW
determination
HW
determination
must
be
made
at
the
point
of
generation
HW
determination
done:

­
before
removed
from
laboratory,
or
­
within
4
days
of
arriving
at
on­
site
central
accumulation
area
or
on­
site
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
facility
Same
as
proposed
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
maximum
accumulation
time
in
laboratory
none
(
Waste
can
be
accumulated
indefinitely
unless
55
gallons
is
exceeded)
6
months
shorter
time
period
(
3
months)
longer
time
period
(
1
year)

maximum
accumulation
volume
55
gallons
hazardous
waste
1
quart
of
acute
hazardous
waste
55
gallons
of
unwanted
material
1
qt
reactive
acutely
hazardous
unwanted
material
("
unwanted
material"
more
broad
than
"
hazardous
waste".
But
"
reactive
acutely
hazardous
unwanted
material"
is
much
narrower
than
"
acute
hazardous
waste"

(
only
7
chemicals))
Same
as
proposed
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
Table
2­
1.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

2­
5
maximum
number
of
days
that
laboratory
can
exceed
maximum
volume
3
days,
excess
of
55
gallons
must
be
removed
10
days,
all
55
gallons
(
or
1
qt
reactive
acutely
hazardous
unwanted
material)

must
be
removed
shorter
time
period
(
7
days)
longer
time
period
(
14
days)
Table
2­
1.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

2­
6
container
labeling
"
hazardous
waste"
or
"
other
words
that
identify
the
contents
of
the
container"
Cautionary
compliance
label 
label
must
have
the
words
unwanted
material.

Additionally,
sufficient
information
to
alert
emergency
response
workers
to
the
contents
or
hazards.
This
must
be
affixed
to
or
physically
accompany
the
container.

Other
information
"
associated"
with
the
container
 
information
"
sufficient
to
allow
a
RCRA
trained
person
to
make
hazardous
waste
determination"
does
not
have
to
be
physically
on
the
container,

but
must
be
associated
with
the
container.

Laboratories
may
use
a
"
bar
code"
or
other
system
of
their
choosing.
Certain
dates
would
be
required
­
date
waste
begins
accumulating
in
container,
and,
if
necessary,
date
55
gallons
or
1
quart
exceeded.
prescriptive
labeling
requirements
spelled
out
in
the
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
Table
2­
1.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

2­
7
training
of
laboratory
personnel
and
instruction
for
students
none
Performance­
based
standards:

°
training
for
laboratory
workers
commensurate
with
duties
°
instruction
for
students
in
classroom
setting
°
training
and
instruction
commensurate
with
duties
as
in
proposal.

°
Requires
training
for
students
in:

labeling,
container
mgmt.,
and
emergency
resp.

°
training
described
in
LMP
Same
as
proposed
rule
container
management
°
containers
must
be
in
good
condition
°
hazardous
waste
must
be
compatible
with
container
°
containers
must
be
kept
closed
except
when
adding
or
removing
waste
Performance­
based
standards:

containers
must
be
properly
managed
to
assure
safe
storage
of
unwanted
materials
to
prevent
spills,
leaks,
emissions
to
the
air
or
adverse
chemical
reactions
or
other
dangerous
situations
which
may
result
in
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Unwanted
materials
must
be
compatible
with
their
containers,
the
containers
must
be
kept
in
good
condition,
and
damaged
containers
must
be
replaced.
prescriptive
requirements
in
the
rule:
i.
e.
container
must
be
closed,
in
good
condition,

compatible
with
waste,
wastes
must
not
be
stored
near
incompatible
wastes
Same
as
proposed
rule
Table
2­
1.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

2­
8
laboratory
management
plan
none
required
to
discuss
implementation
of
performance­
based
standards.
Contents
of
plan
not
enforced
against.
contents
of
laboratory
management
plan
enforced
against
no
laboratory
management
plan
record­
keeping
none
°
strives
to
minimize
additional
recordkeeping
­
one­
time
notification
­
labels
­
training
records
for
LQGs
only
­
laboratory
clean­
out
records
°
Potential
additional
records
identified
by
commenters
Same
as
proposed
rule
laboratory
clean­
outs
none
laboratory
clean­
outs
encouraged,
but
not
mandatory
­
1
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
12
months:

°
hazardous
waste
generated
during
clean­
out
does
not
count
towards
generator
status
°
clean­
out
may
last
30
days
°
excess
of
55
gallons
(
or
1
quart)
may
accumulate
for
duration
of
clean­
out
Same
as
proposed
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
Table
2­
1.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

2­
9
notification
no
notification
requirement
­
notification
of
RA
or
state
director
required
to
be
subject
to
Subpart
K
­
notification
required,
if
college
or
university
chooses
to
return
to
existing
regulations
Subsequent
site
ID
form
(
EPA
Form
8700­
12)
no
notification
for
opt­
in
or
opt
out
optional
rule
current
regulations
not
optional
in
states
that
adopt
the
rule,
individual
colleges/
universities
can
either
choose
this
rule,
or
remain
regulated
under
current
regulations
Same
as
proposed
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
2­
10
2.3
Scope
of
Study
and
Data
Sources
This
study
is
an
assessment
of
the
potential
impacts
to
colleges
and
universities
with
qualifying
laboratories
who
choose
to
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
The
scope
of
the
study
involves
profiling
the
entities
affected,
estimating
both
baseline
and
incremental
costs
for
hazardous
waste
management
under
the
existing
and
proposed
regulations,
respectively,
and
assessing
the
economic
impacts.
The
industries
affected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking
are
identified
in
Table
2­
2.

Table
2­
2
Entities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rulemaking
College
or
University
Type
NAICS
Colleges,
Universities,
and
Professional
Schools
61131
Junior
Colleges
and
Technical
Institutes
61121
Technical
and
Trade
Schools
Other
Technical
and
Trade
Schools
611519
Other
Schools
and
Instruction
Fine
Art
Schools
61161
All
other
miscellaneous
schools
and
instruction
611699
The
primary
source
of
information
regarding
hazardous
waste
generation
and
management
comes
from
the
EPA's
Biennial
Reporting
System
database.
Other
data
and
information
sources
are
listed
in
the
references
section.

2.4
Limitations
of
Analysis
The
Agency
did
not
complete
a
formal
RCRA
3007
survey
of
college
and
university
laboratories.
Consequently,
for
this
assessment
it
was
necessary
to
rely
on
publicly
available
data
which
resulted
in
numerous
limitations,
primarily
related
to
several
key
areas.
These
limitations
are
briefly
summarized
below.

°
This
analysis
does
not
capture
all
of
the
variables
that
may
affect
a
generator's
decision
to
manage
hazardous
wastes
under
the
proposed
rule.
College
and
university
laboratories
manage
hazardous
wastes
with
substantial
variations
in
procedures
and
staff
making
hazardous
waste
determinations,
in
regarding
laboratory
clean­
outs,
use
of
subcontractors
and
other
factors
which
could
not
all
be
modeled.

°
The
analysis
relies
heavily
on
information
generated
through
a
survey
by
the
National
Association
2­
11
of
College
and
University
Business
Officers.
It
is
not
known
how
representative
the
colleges
and
universities
surveyed
are
to
the
colleges
and
universities
impacted
by
the
proposed
rule.

°
This
analysis
relies
on
estimates
of
revenues
for
colleges
and
universities
which
are
derived
from
various
sources.
Estimates
may
not
accurately
reflect
actual
current
revenues
of
the
specific
colleges
and
universities
with
laboratories.

°
This
analysis
relies
on
biennial
reporting
data
which
does
not
include
hazardous
waste
quantities
for
a
number
of
SQGs.
Furthermore
it
is
difficult
to
determine
whether
hazardous
waste
reported
is
generated
in
college
and
university
laboratories
or
other
college
and
university
operations.
3­
1
3.0
POST­
SECONDARY
ACADEMIC
LABORATORIES
Colleges
and
universities
are
classified
under
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
611,
educational
services.
Colleges
and
universities
laboratories
can
be
found
in
several
sub­
categories,
including
61131
(
four­
year
colleges
and
universities),
61121
(
two­
year
colleges),
61161
(
fine
art
schools),
and
611519
(
other
technical
and
trade
schools).
These
classifications
reflect
four­
year
colleges
and
universities,
two­
year
colleges,
fine
art
schools
and
other
technical
and
trade
schools,
respectively.

This
chapter
is
made
up
of
four
individual
sections:
1)
overview
of
four­
year
schools;
2)
overview
of
two­
year
schools;
3)
vocational
schools
categorized
as
"
all
other
miscellaneous
schools
and
instruction,"
"
fine
arts
schools,"
and
"
other
technical
and
trade
schools";
and
4)
an
overview
of
potentially
affected
colleges
and
universities.

3.1
Four­
Year
Colleges
and
Universities
Four­
year
colleges
and
universities,
represented
by
NAICS
Code
61131,
"
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
furnishing
academic
courses
and
granting
degrees
at
baccalaureate
or
graduate
levels."

The
data
in
table
3­
1,
show
the
size
of
four­
year
schools,
based
on
revenue,
in
1997.
According
to
the
data
there
were
a
total
of
2,296
four­
year
schools
in
1997.

Table
3­
1
Revenue
of
4­
year
College
and
Universities
Revenue
Number
of
4­
yr
C/
U's
(
NAICS
61131)
Percent
of
4­
yr
C/
U's
Cumulative
Percent
of
Total
C/
U's
$
0­
1M
124
5.4%
5.4%

$
1­
3M
236
10.3%
15.7%

$
3­
6
M
202
8.8%
24.5%

$
6­
10M
203
8.8%
33.3%

$
10­
15M
208
9.1%
42.4%

$
15­
30M
423
18.4%
60.8%

$
30­
50M
286
12.5%
73.3%
Table
3­
1
Revenue
of
4­
year
College
and
Universities
Revenue
Number
of
4­
yr
C/
U's
(
NAICS
61131)
Percent
of
4­
yr
C/
U's
Cumulative
Percent
of
Total
C/
U's
3­
2
$
50­
100
M
282
12.3%
85.5%

$
100M­
150M
95
4.1%
89.7%

$
150M­
1B
215
9.4%
99.0%

$
1B­
2B
20
0.9%
99.9%

>$
2B
2
0.1%
100.0%

Totals
2296
100.0%

Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
1997
Economic
Census.
(
2002
Census
data
not
available)

Table
3­
2
shows
the
sources
of
revenue
for
all
2296
four­
year
colleges
and
universities.
The
largest
source
of
revenue
for
4­
year
colleges
and
universities
was
from
tuition
and
fees,
accounting
for
just
over
27
percent
of
total
revenue.
State
appropriations
accounted
for
nearly
20
percent
of
total
revenue.
6
U.
S.
Department
of
Education,
National
Center
for
Education
Statistics,
Integrated
Postsecondary
Education
Data
System
(
IPEDS),
Spring
2001.
Number
of
institutions:
http://
nces.
ed.
gov/
quicktables/
Detail.
asp?
Key=
1067
Revenue:
http://
nces.
ed.
gov/
das/
library/
tables_
listings/
show_
nedrc.
asp?
rt=
p&
tableID=
1163
3­
3
Table
3­
2
Sources
of
Revenue
for
4­
yr
Colleges
and
Universities
Source
of
Revenue
Aggregate
Revenue
for
All
C/
U's
(
millions
of
$)
Percent
of
Total
Revenue
Tuition
and
fees
53,660
27%

State
Appropriations
39,497
20%

Federal
Grants
&
Contracts
22,591
11%

Hospital
Revenues
18,851
10%

Auxiliary
Enterprises
18,573
9%

Private
Gifts,
Grants
&
Contracts
11,757
6%

Other
Sources
7,470
4%

Sales
&
Services
of
Educational
Activities
5,527
3%

State
Grants
&
Contracts
5,124
3%

Endowment
Income
4,534
2%

Local
Appropriations
3,911
2%

Independent
Operations
3,497
2%

Federal
Appropriations
2,017
1%

Local
Grants
&
Contracts
1,139
1%

Total
198,148
100%*

Source:
National
Center
for
Education
Statistics,
Integrated
Postsecondary
Education
Data
System,
financial
survey,
1997.

*
Percentages
may
not
add
due
to
rounding.

The
average
revenue
per
4­
year
college
or
university
is
estimated
in
2000
as
$
53.3
million.
6
Expressed
in
2004
dollars,
by
inflating
revenues
using
the
consumer
price
index,
average
7
http://
minneapolisfed.
org/
Research/
data/
us/
calc/
hist1913.
cfm
8
U.
S.
Department
of
Education,
National
Center
for
Education
Statistics,
Integrated
Postsecondary
Education
Data
System
(
IPEDS),
Spring
2001.
Number
of
institutions:

3­
4
revenues
per
4­
year
college
or
university
are
estimated
at
$
58.5
million.
7
3.2
Two­
Year
Colleges
Two
year
colleges,
represented
by
NAICS
Code
61121,
"
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
furnishing
academic,
or
academic
and
technical,
courses
and
granting
associate
degrees,
certificates,
or
diplomas
below
the
baccalaureate
level."
Table
3­
3
shows
the
sizes
of
two­
year
colleges
based
on
revenue.

Table
3­
3
Revenue
of
2­
year
Colleges
Revenue
Number
of
2­
year
Colleges
(
NAICS
61121)
Percent
of
2­
year
Colleges
Cumulative
Percentage
of
2­
year
Colleges
$
0­
1
M
147
9.0%
9.0%

$
1­
5M
459
28.0%
37.0%

$
5­
10M
280
17.1%
54.1%

$
10­
15M
221
13.5%
67.6%

$
15­
25M
219
13.4%
81.0%

$
25­
50M
212
12.9%
93.9%

$
50­
100M
88
5.4%
99.3%

$
100­
150M
8
0.5%
99.8%

$
150­
250M
2
0.1%
99.9%

$
250­
450M
2
0.1%
100.0%

Total
1638
100.0%

Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
1997
Economic
Census
(
2002
Census
data
not
available)

The
average
revenue
per
2­
year
colleges
is
estimated
in
2000
as
$
22.9
million.
8
Expressed
in
http://
nces.
ed.
gov/
quicktables/
Detail.
asp?
Key=
1067
Revenue:
http://
nces.
ed.
gov/
das/
library/
tables_
listings/
show_
nedrc.
asp?
rt=
p&
tableID=
1163
9
http://
minneapolisfed.
org/
Research/
data/
us/
calc/
hist1913.
cfm
3­
5
2004
dollars,
by
inflating
revenues
using
the
consumer
price
index,
average
revenues
per
2­
year
colleges
are
estimated
at
$
25.1
million.
9
3.3
Vocational
Schools
Potentially
affected
vocational
schools
comprise
all
other
miscellaneous
schools
and
instruction
(
NAICS
Code
611699),
fine
arts
schools
(
NAICS
Code
61161),
and
other
technical
and
trade
schools
(
NAICS
Code
611519).

3.3.1
Other
Miscellaneous
Schools
and
Instruction
Other
miscellaneous
schools
and
instruction,
represented
by
NAICS
Code
611699,
"
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
offering
instruction
(
except
business,
computer,
management,
technical,
trade,
fine
arts,
athletic,
language
instruction,
tutoring,
and
automobile
driving
instruction.)
Also
excluded
from
this
industry
are
academic
schools,
colleges,
and
universities."

Table
3­
4
shows
the
average
annual
revenue
of
other
miscellaneous
schools
and
instruction
as
well
as
their
taxable
status.

Table
3­
4
Average
Annual
Revenue
of
Other
Miscellaneous
Schools
and
Instruction
Tax
Status
Number
of
Schools
Average
Revenue/
Yr
Taxable
Schools
1,582
$
714,600
Tax
Exempt
Schools
1,515
$
660,576
Taxable
and
Tax
Exempt
Schools
3,097
$
688,172
Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2002
Economic
Census
3.3.2
Fine
Art
Schools
Fine
Art
schools,
represented
by
NAICS
Code
61161,
"
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
offering
or
providing
instruction
in
the
arts,
including
dance,
art,
drama
and
music."
3­
6
Table
3­
5
shows
the
average
revenue
of
Fine
Art
schools
as
well
as
their
taxable
status.

Table
3­
5
Average
Annual
Revenue
of
Fine
Art
Schools
Tax
Status
Number
of
Schools
Average
Revenue/
Yr
Taxable
Schools
7,266
$
209,852
Tax
Exempt
Schools
1,934
$
384,736
Taxable
and
Tax
Exempt
Schools
9,200
$
246,615
Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2002
Economic
Census
3.3.3
Other
Technical
and
Trade
Schools
Other
technical
and
trade
schools,
represented
by
NAICS
Code
611519,
"
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
offering
job
or
career
vocational
or
technical
courses
(
except
cosmetology
and
barber
training,
aviation
and
flight
training,
and
apprenticeship
training.)
The
curriculums
offered
by
these
schools
are
highly
structured
and
specialized
and
lead
to
job­
specific
certification."

Table
3­
6
shows
the
average
annual
revenue
of
other
technical
and
trade
schools
as
well
as
their
taxable
status.

Table
3­
6
Average
Annual
Revenue
of
Other
Technical
and
Trade
Schools
Tax
Status
Number
of
Schools
Average
Revenue/
Yr
Taxable
Schools
2,682
$
1,275,477
Tax
Exempt
Schools
641
$
1,089,183
Taxable
and
Tax
Exempt
Schools
3,323
$
1,239,541
Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2002
Economic
Census
3.3.4
Average
Annual
Revenues
of
Vocational
Schools
Average
annual
revenues
for
potentially
affected
vocational
schools,
which
includes
schools
classified
under
NAICS
Codes
611699,
61161,
and
611519,
are
estimated
at
approximately
$
545,400.
Expressed
in
2004
dollars,
by
inflating
revenues
using
the
consumer
price
index,
10
http://
minneapolisfed.
org/
Research/
data/
us/
calc/
hist1913.
cfm
3­
7
average
annual
revenues
per
school
are
estimated
at
$
572,700.10
3.4
Overview
of
Potentially
Affected
Colleges,
Universities,
and
Vocational
Schools
Colleges,
universities
and
vocational
schools
(
NAICS
codes
61131,
61121,
611610,
and
611519)
targeted
by
the
rule
will
have
the
option
to
be
subject
to
the
rule,
or
continue
to
operate
in
compliance
with
the
existing
regulation.
In
this
section,
the
estimated
number
of
colleges
and
universities
that
may
choose
to
operate
under
the
proposed
regulation
are
documented.

3.4.1
Universe
of
Potentially
Affected
Colleges,
Universities,
and
Vocational
Schools
In
2001
there
were
a
total
of
1,811
college,
university,
and
vocational
school
LQGs
and
SQGs
generating
hazardous
waste.
Of
these
totals,
333
are
LQGs
and
1,478
are
SQGs,
including
505
SQGs
with
no
available
data
on
hazardous
waste
generation.
Details
regarding
the
actual
number
of
colleges,
universities,
and
vocational
schools
by
type
of
institution
are
presented
in
Table
3­
7.

Table
3­
7
Number
of
Colleges,
Universities,
and
Vocational
Schools
With
Laboratories
Type
of
College,
University,
or
Vocational
School
LQG
SQG
Total
Number
of
Colleges,
Universities,
and
Vocational
Schools
4­
year
314
847
1,161
2­
year
13
334
347
Vocational
6
297
303
Total
333
1,478
1,811
Source:
2001
Biennial
Reporting
Data
The
total
quantity
of
hazardous
waste
generated
by
the
affected
colleges
and
universities
is
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
In
total,
the
affected
colleges,
universities,
and
vocational
schools
generated
a
total
of
11,628
tons
of
hazardous
waste
during
2001,
excluding
remediation
wastes.
Of
this
waste
quantity,
laboratory
hazardous
wastes
are
estimated
to
range
from
3,397
to
6,003
ton
per
year.
3­
8
Table
3­
8
Total
Annual
Quantity
of
Hazardous
Waste
Generated
by
Colleges
and
Universities
and
Estimated
Hazardous
Waste
Generated
From
Laboratory
Operations
Generator
Status
Total
Hazardous
Waste
Generated1
(
tons/
yr)
Estimated
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Generated
(
tons/
yr)
Estimated
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
as
a
Percentage
of
Total
Hazardous
Waste
(%)
Average
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Generated
Per
College
or
University
(
tons/
yr)

Small
Quantity
Generators2
2,723
480
­
911
18
­
33
0.32
­
0.62
Large
Quantity
Generators3
8,905
2,917
­
5,092
33
­
57
8.8
­
15.3
Total
11,628
3,397
­
6,003
29
­
52
1.9
­
3.3
1/
Total
hazardous
waste
generated,
excluding
remediation
waste.
Includes
hazardous
waste
generated
at
hospitals
and
by
other
college
and
university
operations,
including
laboratories.

2/
The
lower
bound
of
the
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
include
only
those
waste
streams
that
contained
the
word
"
lab"
in
the
biennial
reporting
database
(
excluding
hazardous
waste
generated
at
college
and
university
hospitals).
The
upper
bound
estimate
includes
all
hazardous
wastes
identified
with
the
word
"
lab",

as
well
as
all
other
hazardous
wastes
reported
in
the
biennial
reporting
database
that
have
no
accompanying
description.
Estimated
volumes
are
for
all
1,478
SQGs.
BRS
data
only
includes
hazardous
waste
quantities
for
973
SQGs.
Total
waste
generated
by
the
other
505
is
assumed
to
equal
the
average
quantity
for
the
973
SQGs
reporting
waste
quantities.

3/
The
lower
bound
of
the
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
include
only
those
waste
streams
that
contained
the
word
"
lab"
in
the
biennial
reporting
database
(
excluding
hazardous
waste
generated
at
college
and
university
hospitals).
The
upper
bound
estimate
includes
all
hazardous
wastes
identified
with
the
word
"
lab",

as
well
as
all
other
hazardous
wastes
reported
in
the
biennial
reporting
database
that
have
no
accompanying
description.
Estimated
volumes
represent
333
LQGs.

Source:
Biennial
Reporting
Data,
2001.

For
purposes
of
this
analysis,
the
number
of
laboratories
per
college
or
university
is
important
to
estimating
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
regulation.
The
only
data
available
are
from
a
survey
conducted
by
the
National
Association
of
College
and
University
Business
Officers,
which
was
relied
upon
to
estimate
the
number
of
laboratories
per
college
or
university.
Estimates
derived
from
this
source
are
presented
in
Table
3­
9.
3­
9
Table
3­
9
Estimated
Number
of
Laboratories
at
Colleges
and
Universities
by
Generator
Status
Number
of
Laboratories
<
10
10­
20
21­
50
51­
100
101­
500
>
500
Total
Generator
Status
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
Small
Quantity
Generators
341
352
375
216
171
23
1478
Large
Quantity
Generators
11
3
25
36
122
136
333
Total
352
355
400
252
293
159
1811
Source:
National
Association
of
College
and
University
Business
Officers,
NACUBO
2005
hazardous
waste
survey,
http://
www.
nacubo.
org/
documents/
business_
topics/
HazardousWasteSurveyResults.
pdf.

3.4.2
Universe
of
Colleges
and
Universities
in
States
Assumed
to
Adopt
the
Regulation
States
authorized
to
administer
their
RCRA
programs
are
required
to
modify
their
programs
only
when
EPA
enacts
federal
requirements
that
are
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
existing
federal
requirements.
Authorized
states
may,
but
are
not
required
to,
adopt
federal
regulations,
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA,
that
are
considered
less
stringent
than
previous
federal
regulations.
The
proposed
rule
however,
is
considered
to
be
neither
more
nor
less
stringent
than
the
current
standards.
Therefore,
authorized
States
would
not
be
required
to
modify
their
programs
to
adopt
regulations
consistent
with
and
equivalent
to
the
proposed
rule.

We
assume
that
only
the
28
states
that
adopt
85
percent
or
more
of
EPA's
rules,
plus
Iowa
and
Puerto
Rico,
will
adopt
the
proposed
rule.
In
these
states,
there
are
173
LQGs
and
666
SQGs.
The
estimated
number
of
colleges
and
universities
projected
to
be
subject
to
this
rule
in
Table
3­
10
is
based
on
this
assumption.
3­
10
Table
3­
10
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
With
Laboratories
in
30
States
and
Territories
Projected
to
Adopt
the
New
Laboratory
Rule
Type
of
College
or
University
LQG
SQG
Totals
4­
year
164
385
549
2­
year
5
144
149
Vocational
4
137
141
Total
173
666
839
Source:
2001
Biennial
Reporting
System
11Email
Re:
FW:
EPA
Laboratory
Waste
Management
rule
to
Craig
Simons
of
DPRA
from
Dr.
Bruce
Backus,
Assistant
Vice
Chancellor,
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
at
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis,
August
1,
2005.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
many
colleges
and
universities
have
different
practices
regarding
the
management
of
generated
wastes,
however
no
data
are
available
to
assess
what
practices
are
most
common.

4­
1
4.0
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
GENERATION
AND
MANAGEMENT
This
chapter
presents
a
description
of
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
hazardous
waste
management
costs
which
are
incurred
by
colleges
and
universities
potentially
affected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking.
The
primary
focus
was
on
changes
in
costs
incurred
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule,
from
the
baseline
to
the
proposed
regulatory
option.
In
order
to
estimate
impacts,
numerous
assumptions
regarding
colleges
and
universities
were
required,
which
are
detailed
in
the
following
sections.
The
final
section
presents
results,
including
baseline,
impact
and
incremental
costs
as
estimated
using
the
methods
and
assumptions
outlined.

4.1
Overview
of
Colleges
and
Universities
Modeled
In
order
to
estimate
impacts,
model
colleges
and
universities
were
developed,
based
on
information
regarding
various
factors
including
number
of
laboratories,
whether
the
college
or
university
used
a
central
accumulation
area
(
CAA)
for
hazardous
wastes
generated
at
individual
laboratories,
and
RCRA
generator
status.
An
overview
of
the
model
colleges
and
universities
used
in
this
analysis
is
presented
in
Table
4­
1.

4.2
General
Model
Assumptions
The
total
cost
burden
estimated
for
the
proposed
regulation
is
estimated
using
two
college
and
university
models,
one
with
a
central
accumulation
area
(
CAA)
and
one
without
a
CAA.
As
hazardous
waste
is
generated
through
normal
operations
within
the
laboratory,
the
hazardous
waste
container
is
labeled
with
the
constituents
in
the
hazardous
waste
and
placed
in
an
accumulation
hood
for
storage.
The
hazardous
waste
is
handled
in
a
conservative
manner
by
assuming
all
generated
waste
is
hazardous.
11
Placing
the
hazardous
waste
in
the
hood
with
a
label
naming
the
constituents
is
consistent
with
the
current
regulations
for
satellite
accumulations
areas.
Colleges
and
universities
with
and
without
CAAs
will
accumulate
hazardous
wastes
in
the
same
way
in
the
laboratory
setting.

For
a
college
or
university
with
a
CAA,
an
environmental
health
and
safety
(
EH&
S)
staff
person
is
assumed
to
visit
each
laboratory
on
a
monthly
basis,
make
necessary
hazardous
waste
determinations,
and
prepare
a
full
hazardous
waste
label
including
the
necessary
information
regarding
the
contents'
HW
determination
and
accumulation
date.
The
label
is
required
prior
to
the
transfer
to
the
on­
site
CAA.
The
satellite
accumulation
area
is
assumed
to
never
exceed
the
12The
survey
respondents
reported
70
percent
of
colleges
and
universities
never
require
a
waste
pickup
due
to
exceeding
the
accumulation
limit
of
55
gallons
because
they
remove
waste
frequently.

13
Instruction
of
students
and
training
of
laboratory
workers
and
EH&
S
staff
regarding
waste
management
procedures
is
typically
practiced
by
the
affected
colleges
and
universities
(
Backus,
B.,
2005.
Personal
communication
with
Craig
Simons
DPRA,
regarding
typical
personnel
training
and
instruction).
Accordingly,
because
of
these
baseline
practices,
we
do
not
anticipate
any
incremental
costs.
Actual
HWID
requirements
are
unchanged
insofar
as
the
determination
will
still
be
required
for
each
wastestream
generated.
Similarly
transportation
requirements
are
assumed
to
be
unchanged
from
the
baseline,
whether
hazardous
waste
goes
to
a
CAA
and
then
to
disposal,
or
directly
from
the
laboratory
to
disposal.

4­
2
accumulation
limit
of
55
gallons12.
Hazardous
waste
accumulated
in
the
CAA
is
assumed
to
be
stored
for
the
maximum
storage
time
allowed
by
40
CFR
262.34
(
90
or
180
days).
The
hazardous
waste
is
assumed
to
be
collected
and
lab­
packed
by
contractors
directly
from
the
CAA.
The
hazardous
waste
is
assumed
to
be
incinerated.

For
a
college
or
university
without
a
CAA,
the
laboratory
manager
will
perform
the
HW
determination
and
label
the
containers.
The
hazardous
wastes
will
be
collected
and
lab­
packed
by
contractors
directly
from
the
laboratory.
For
cost
modeling
purposes,
the
contractors
are
assumed
to
collect
hazardous
waste
on
a
schedule
similar
to
the
maximum
storage
duration
regulated
by
40
CFR
262.34
based
on
the
facility's
generator
status
(
90
or
180
days).
The
hazardous
waste
is
assumed
to
be
incinerated.

The
costs
for
training,
performing
HW
determination,
off­
site
transportation,
and
disposal
of
hazardous
waste
are
not
anticipated
to
be
effected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking;
therefore,
incremental
costs
are
estimated
to
be
zero.
13
Under
the
more
stringent
option
(
Option
A)
of
the
proposed
rule,
additional
costs
are
the
result
of
the
decrease
in
the
allowed
accumulation
time
of
waste
in
the
laboratory.
This
effects
the
colleges
and
universities
without
CAAs.
Under
the
less
stringent
option
(
Option
B)
of
the
proposed
rule,
the
costs
of
notification
are
removed.
In
all
other
cost
assumptions,
Option
A
and
Option
B
are
the
same
as
the
proposed
rule.

The
proposed
rulemaking
will
allow
a
laboratory
manager
to
label
the
generated
waste
as
unwanted
material
and
subsequently
make
the
hazardous
waste
determination
either
before
the
material
is
removed
from
the
laboratory
or
within
four
days
of
arrival
at
on­
site
CAA
or
TSDF.
This
eliminates
the
need
for
EH&
S
staff
to
travel
to
the
laboratory
on
a
monthly
basis
but
increases
the
laboratory
manger's
labeling
responsibilities.
4­
3
Table
4­
1.
Frequency
of
Colleges,
Universities
and
Vocational
Schools
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Institution
System
Size
LQGs
SQGs
Totals
w/
CAA
(
89%)
w/
o
CAA
(
11%)
w/
CAA
(
68%)
w/
o
CAA
(
32%)

4­
year
C/
U
Large
(>
50
laboratories
and
>
5
studios)
238
29
132
62
461
Small
(<=
50
laboratories
and
<=
5
studios)
42
5
444
209
700
2­
year
C/
U
Large
(>
50
laboratories
and
>
5
studios)
10
1
52
25
88
Small
(<=
50
laboratories
and
<=
5
studios)
2
0
175
82
259
Vocational
Large
(>
50
laboratories
and
>
5
studios)
4
1
46
22
73
Small
(<=
50
laboratories
and
<=
5
studios)
1
0
156
73
230
Totals
297
36
1,005
473
1,811
4­
4
Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
Source:
Estimates
derived
from
percentage­
based
estimates
from
the
National
Association
of
College
and
University
Business
Officers,
NACUBO
2005
hazardous
waste
survey,
http://
www.
nacubo.
org/
documents/
business_
topics/
HazardousWasteSurveyResults.
pdf.

Notes:

­
89%
of
LQGs
and
68%
of
SQGs
have
a
CAA.

­
11%
of
LQGs
and
32%
of
SQGs
DO
NOT
have
a
CAA.

­
85%
of
LQGs
and
23%
of
SQGs
have
>
50
laboratories.
Assumed
weighted
average
of
501
laboratories
per
C/
U
for
LQGs
and
164
laboratories
per
C/
U
for
SQGs.

­
15%
of
LQGs
and
77%
of
SQGs
have
<=
50
laboratories.
Assumed
weighted
average
of
22
laboratories
per
C/
U
for
LQGs
and
20
laboratories
per
C/
U
for
SQGs.

­
63%
of
LQGs
and
33%
of
SQGs
have
>
5
art
studios.
Assumed
weighted
average
of
26
art
studios
per
C/
U
for
LQGs
and
18
art
studios
per
C/
U
for
SQGs.

­
36%
of
LQGs
and
61%
of
SQGs
have
<=
5
art
studios.
Assumed
weighted
average
of
3
art
studios
per
C/
U
for
LQGs
and
3
art
studios
per
C/
U
for
SQGs.

­
LQG
total
annual
hazardous
waste
generation:

weighted
average
=
28
tons
10th
Percentile
=
1.5
tons
50th
Percentile
=
25
tons
90th
Percentile
=
50
tons
36%
of
LQGs
<
12.5
tons.
These
LQGs
must
exceed
1,000
kg
in
at
least
one
month,
or
generate
more
than
one
kg
of
acute
toxic
hazardous
waste
to
classify
as
an
LQG
given
their
annual
generation
rate
is
similar
to
a
small
quantity
generator
when
averaged
out
over
12
months.

Lower
15%
of
LQGs
=
2.4
tons
weighted
average
Upper
85%
of
LQGs
=
33.2
tons
weighted
average
­
SQG
total
annual
hazardous
waste
generation:

weighted
average
=
3
tons.

10th
Percentile
=
0.1
tons
50th
Percentile
=
1.5
tons
90th
Percentile
=
7.5
tons
38%
of
SQGs
<
1.2
tons.
These
SQGs
must
exceed
100
kg
in
at
least
one
month
to
classify
as
an
SQG
given
their
annual
generation
rate
is
similar
to
a
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
when
averaged
at
over
12
months.
4­
5
The
proposed
rule
is
intended
to
encourage
colleges
and
universities
to
regularly
conduct
laboratory
clean­
outs
of
unwanted
materials,
which
will
reduce
environmental
and
health
risks
associated
with
laboratory
operations.
One
aspect
of
the
proposed
rule
is
that
waste
generated
as
a
result
of
eligible
clean­
outs
(
i.
e.,
one
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
12
months)
will
not
count
in
determining
RCRA
generator
status.
Because
of
this
aspect
of
the
rule,
colleges
and
universities
may
be
able
to
retain/
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
if
the
reason
the
college
or
university's
generator
status
was
raised
is
because
of
a
clean­
out
event
(
for
example,
moving
from
SQG
to
LQG
or
even
CESQG
to
LQG
due
to
generation
of
hazardous
waste
from
a
clean­
out
of
eligible
laboratories).
However
the
Agency
does
not
have
data
sufficiently
detailed
to
estimate
the
number
of
colleges
and
universities
so
affected.
Therefore,
significant
assumptions
have
been
made
regarding
the
monthly
generation
of
all
hazardous
wastes,
the
type
and
quantity
of
hazardous
waste
generated
as
a
result
of
laboratory
clean­
outs,
and
the
risk
management
practices
employed
by
colleges
and
universities.

The
Agency
recognizes
that
some
small
number
of
colleges
and
universities
may
generate
hazardous
waste
which
puts
them
just
over
the
threshold
for
a
particular
generator
status,
making
them
an
LQG
versus
a
CESQG
or
SQG.
As
an
example,
there
may
be
an
SQG
which
generated
just
over
100
kilograms
in
a
particular
month
due
to
a
laboratory
clean­
out,
but
generated
less
than
100
kilograms
in
each
of
the
other
11
months
of
the
year.
This
facility
would
likely
benefit
by
retaining/
maintaining
a
normally
lower
generator
status
(
i.
e.,
CESQG
rather
than
SQG)
under
the
proposed
the
rule
if
clean­
out
wastes
from
eligible
clean­
outs
is
the
reason
for
a
higher
reported
generator
status.

Additionally,
colleges
and
universities
that
are
normally
not
LQGs
except
when
generating
hazardous
wastes
from
laboratory
clean­
out
events
may
benefit
by
retaining/
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
because
a
significant
portion
of
the
wastes
generated
during
laboratory
cleanouts
are
believed
to
be
acute
hazardous
wastes.
Because
generators
of
one
kilogram
of
acute
hazardous
waste/
per
month
are
LQGs,
regardless
of
what
other
hazardous
waste
they
may
generate,
elimination
of
acute
hazardous
waste
generated
during
eligible
clean­
outs
from
the
determination
of
generator
status
may
have
a
substantial
impact.

Table
4­
2
presents
estimates
of
the
potential
number
of
colleges
and
universities
assumed
to
be
able
to
retain/
maintain
a
lower
generator
status.
The
assumptions
made
in
deriving
the
estimates
are
significant,
as
noted
in
the
footnotes
to
the
table.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
the
estimates
may
be
inflated
because
of
the
lack
of
sufficient
data
to
be
able
to
better
refine
estimates
and
the
assumptions
underlying
the
estimates.
4­
6
Table
4­
2.
Estimated
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
That
May
Potentially
Change
RCRA
Generator
Status
Due
to
the
Proposed
Laboratory
Waste
Rule
1/

Generator
Status
#
of
Colleges
and
Universities
%
LQGs
Generating
1,000­

2,000
KG/
YR
Total
Hazardous
Waste
2/
%
LQGs
Generating
2,000­
8,000
KG/
YR
Total
Hazardous
Waste
3/
%
LQGs
Generating
>
12
lbs
of
Acute
Hazardous
Waste
Per
Year
4/
Percentage
of
Colleges
and
Universities
That
May
Potentially
Change
Generator
Status
5/

%
SQGs
Generating
100­

200
KG/
YR
Total
Hazardous
Waste
2/

LQG
333
8
26
83
30
SQG
1,478
8
NA
NA
8
4­
7
1/
Generator
status
is
determined
on
a
monthly
basis.
If
a
college
or
university
exceeds
the
volume
thresholds
of
LQGs
even
on
month
a
year,
it
must
report
on
the
Biennial
Report
as
an
LQG.
Colleges
and
universities
may
be
able
to
retain/
maintain
a
lower
RCRA
generator
status
because
wastes
generated
during
eligible
laboratory
clean­
outs
(
i.
e.,
one
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
12
months)
are
excluded
from
the
calculation
of
total
hazardous
waste
generated.
In
these
limited
instances
the
reduced
volume
of
hazardous
waste
may
allow
them
to
retain/
maintain
a
lower
generator
status.
This
is
particularly
beneficial
to
generators
that
become
LQGs
due
to
generation
of
acutely
hazardous
wastes
during
a
laboratory
clean­
out
since
these
wastes
are
more
likely
to
trip
the
1
kg/
month
threshold
limits
and
cause
a
generator
to
increase
its
status
to
LQG.

2/
Some
colleges
and
universities
are
assumed
to
retain/
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
by
excluding
hazardous
waste
generated
during
eligible
laboratory
clean­
outs,
regardless
of
the
type
of
hazardous
waste
generated
during
these
clean­
outs.
These
colleges
and
universities
would
be
limited
to
a
small
number
which
currently
are
only
slightly
over
the
maximum
monthly
volume
once
or
twice
a
year.
For
example,
assume
that
an
LQG
university
generates
a
constant
990
kg
of
hazardous
waste
during
its
operations,
but
in
one
month
conducts
laboratory
clean­
outs
which
result
in
an
additional
10+
kg
of
hazardous
waste;
because
of
the
waste
generated
during
the
laboratory
clean­
out,
it
is
becomes
an
LQG,
rather
than
maintaining
its
normal
status
of
SQG.

For
purposes
of
this
analysis,
the
number
of
generators
which
would
benefit
from
retaining/
maintaining
a
lower
reporting
status
was
approximated
by
those
SQGs
generating
from
100
to
200
kilograms
of
total
hazardous
waste
annually,
and
those
LQGs
generating
1,000
to
2,000
kilograms
of
total
hazardous
waste
annually
(
including
remediation
wastes,
as
well
as
other
hazardous
wastes
generated
as
a
result
of
non­
laboratory
operations).
The
Agency
believes
that
this
is
likely
an
overestimation
of
the
number
of
colleges
and
universities
which
may
benefit
from
a
lower
generator
status.

3/
For
purposes
of
this
analysis
it
was
assumed
that
some
portion
of
the
college
and
university
LQGs
generating,
on
average,
less
than
67
percent
of
the
annual
threshold
level
of
hazardous
wastes,
were
defined
as
LQGs
rather
than
SQGs
because
of
acute
hazardous
wastes
generated
from
laboratory
cleanouts
the
67
percent
threshold
is
used
based
on
professional
judgement,
since
the
Agency
has
no
data
on
the
variability
of
monthly
total
hazardous
waste
generation
at
colleges
and
universities.
It
is
assumed
that
colleges
and
universities
generating
more
than
this
amount
would
likely
exceed
the
threshold
generation
level
in
at
least
one
month
during
the
year
(
e.
g.,
LQGs
generating
>
6,700
kg
of
hazardous
waste
annually
would
exceed
1,000
kg
of
hazardous
waste
in
one
or
more
months,
making
them
LQGs
regardless
of
acute
hazardous
waste
they
may
generate).
Accordingly,
even
excluding
any
acute
waste
generated
during
qualified
laboratory
clean­
outs
from
counting
toward
their
generator
status
determination
would
not
affect
their
status
due
to
exceeding
1,000
kg
of
total
hazardous
waste
during
a
given
month.
However,
LQGs
generating
less
than
6,700
kg
of
total
hazardous
waste
may
benefit
from
a
lower
generator
status
because
acute
hazardous
waste
generated
during
qualified
laboratory
clean­
outs
is
not
considered
in
determining
generator
status.
4­
8
4/
Estimated
percentage
of
colleges
and
universities
generating
more
than
12
pounds
of
acute
hazardous
waste
per
year
based
on
results
from
a
survey
conducted
by
the
National
Association
of
College
and
University
Business
Officers.
It
is
assumed
that
colleges
and
universities
generating
more
than
12
pounds
of
acute
hazardous
wastes
per
year
generate
at
least
one
kilogram
of
this
acute
hazardous
waste
in
a
given
month
during
a
qualified
laboratory
clean­
out,
and
this
acute
hazardous
waste
is
what
changes
their
generator
status
from
SQG
to
LQG;
this
assumption
has
been
made
only
for
those
colleges
and
universities
generating
between
2,000
and
8,000
kilograms
of
total
hazardous
waste
in
a
given
year.
Using
the
estimate
of
12
pounds
of
acute
hazardous
waste
as
a
proxy
for
the
colleges
and
universities
likely
to
exceed
the
one­
month
total
generation
of
one
kg
due
to
qualified
laboratory
clean­
outs
is
based
on
professional
judgement.
The
Agency
does
not
have
data
on
the
acute
hazardous
waste
generated
from
laboratory
clean­
outs.

5/
For
LQGs,
this
is
calculated
as
8%
plus
26%
times
83%,
resulting
in
a
total
of
30%
of
LQGs
which
may
benefit
from
maintaining
their
usual
lower
generator
status.

4.3
Annualization
Methodology
of
Before­
Tax
Compliance
Costs
Under
Executive
Order
12866,
EPA
must
determine
whether
a
regulation
constitutes
a
"
significant
regulatory
action."
One
of
the
criteria
for
defining
a
significant
regulatory
action,
as
defined
under
the
Executive
Order,
is
if
the
rule
has
an
annual
impact
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more.
To
determine
whether
the
proposed
rule
is
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
this
criteria,
all
costs
are
annualized
on
a
before­
tax
basis
assuming
a
seven
percent
real
discount
rate.
The
savings
attributable
to
corporate
tax
deductions
or
depreciation
on
capital
expenditures
for
equipment
are
not
considered
in
calculating
before­
tax
costs.

A
college
or
university­
specific
annualized
before­
tax
cost
analysis
was
conducted
for
each
college
or
university
affected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking.
Annual
before­
tax
baseline,
compliance,
and
incremental
compliance
costs
were
estimated
for
each
college
or
university.
Before­
tax
incremental
compliance
costs
were
used
because
they
represent
a
resource
or
social
cost
of
the
rulemaking,
measured
before
any
business
expense
tax
deductions
that
are
available
to
affected
colleges
or
universities.
In
reformulating
the
social
costs
of
compliance,
a
discount
rate
(
real
rate
of
return)
of
seven
percent
was
used,
an
estimated
period
of
service
or
life
of
the
product.

The
following
formula
was
used
to
determine
the
before­
tax
annualized
costs:

Annual
Before­
Tax
Costs
=
(
Capital
Costs)(
CRF
n
)+
(
Annual
O&
M
Costs)

Where:
CRF
n
=
Capital
recovery
factor
(
i.
e.,
the
amount
of
each
future
annuity
payment
required
to
accumulate
a
given
present
value)
based
on
a
7
percent
real
rate
of
return
(
I)
and
a
10­
year
borrowing
period
(
n)
as
follows:

(
1
+
i)
n(
I)
=
0.18555
when
n
=
7
(
1
+
i) 
1
0.29523
when
n
=
4
0.55310
when
n
=
2
Costs
are
inflated
from
estimated
year
dollars
to
2004
year
dollars
using
the
rate
of
inflation
as
14
http://
minneapolisfed.
org/
Research/
data/
us/
calc/
hist1913.
cfm
15
Applicable
only
for
LQGs
who
are
able
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
rule.

4­
9
presented
with
the
consumer
price
index14.

Costs
for
contingency
planning15,
and
the
notification
of
intentions
to
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
are
one­
time
costs
for
affected
colleges
and
universities.
These
costs
will
be
incurred
the
first
year,
but
not
subsequent
years.
All
other
costs
are
estimated
as
annual
expenditures.

4.4
Cost
Model
Unit
Costs
Labor
Rates
Labor
rates
were
determined
using
the
National
Compensation
Survey:
Occupational
Wages
in
the
United
States,
July
2003.
Labor
fringe
benefit
and
overhead
rates
are
estimated
using
United
States
Department
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
USDL:
05­
432,
March
16,
2005,
and
OMB
Circular
No.
A­
76
­
Table
C,
May
29,
2003,
respectively.
The
fringe
benefits
are
estimated
as
39
percent
of
the
base
labor
rate.
The
overhead
rate
is
estimated
as
12
percent
of
the
base
and
fringe
benefit
labor
rate.
The
labor
rates
are
based
on
the
hourly
pay
of
a
full­
time
annual
salary
employee.
The
labor
rates
are
inflated
from
2003
dollars
to
2004
dollars
using
a
inflation
factor
of
2.7
percent.
The
following
formula
was
used
to
determine
the
loaded,
inflated
labor
rates:

$
38.09
(
uninflated
base
hourly
rate
Chemistry
Teacher)
*
1.027
(
inflation)
=
$
39.12/
hr
(
2004$)
$
39.12/
hr
(
2004)
*
1.39
(
fringe
benefits)
*
1.12
(
overhead
markup)
=
$
60.90/
hr
(
2004$)

Table
4­
3
presents
the
loaded
and
unloaded
hourly
wages.
16
http://
www.
osha.
gov/
fso/
osp/
index.
html
4­
10
Table
4­
3.
Labor
Rates
(
2004$)

Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
Labor
Class
Applied
Employee
Position
Labor
Rate
($/
hour)
Unloaded
Labor
Rate
($/
hour)
Loaded
Chemistry
Teacher
Professor
$
39.12
$
60.90
Laboratory
Manager
$
19.56
$
30.45
Student
Laboratory
Worker
$
9.78
$
15.22
Chemical
Engineer
EH&
S
Personnel
$
41.85
$
65.15
Secretary
Clerical
$
15.97
$
24.86
Management
and
Administrators,
n.
e.
c.
Management
$
38.01
$
59.17
Drafter
Drafting
$
20.48
$
31.88
Furnace,
Kiln,
Oven
Operators
Process
Technician
$
15.10
$
23.50
The
laboratory
manager
and
laboratory
worker
labor
rates
are
based
on
the
chemistry
teacher
labor
rate.
A
laboratory
manager
is
assumed
to
be
compensated
at
a
rate
of
half
the
professor
labor
rate.
A
laboratory
worker
is
assumed
to
be
compensated
at
a
rate
of
half
the
laboratory
manager
rate.
A
laboratory
worker
is
assumed
to
be
a
undergraduate
or
masters
student.
A
laboratory
manager
is
assumed
to
be
a
doctorate
level
student.

Training
The
proposed
rule
requires
training
commensurate
with
the
responsibilities
of
the
laboratory
worker.
Under
current
OSHA
regulation
1910.1450,
training
for
laboratory
employees
that
manage
or
handle
hazardous
materials
is
required.
Currently
there
are
26
states
and
territories
with
OSHA­
compliant
job
safety
and
health
programs
(
Alaska,
Arizona,
California,
Connecticut,
Hawaii,
Indiana,
Iowa,
Kentucky,
Maryland,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Nevada,
New
Jersey,
New
Mexico,
New
York,
North
Carolina,
Oregon,
Puerto
Rico,
South
Carolina,
Tennessee,
Utah,
Vermont,
Virgin
Islands,
Virginia,
Washington,
and
Wyoming).
16
Employers
in
these
states
must
provide
employees
with
effective
information
and
training
on
hazardous
chemicals
in
their
work
area
at
the
time
of
their
initial
assignment,
and
whenever
a
new
physical
or
health
hazard
the
employees
have
not
previously
been
trained
about
is
introduced
into
their
work
area.
However
it
appears
that
most
colleges
and
universities,
including
those
in
non­
OSHA
compliant
states,
currently
provide
a
variety
of
training
to
employees
and
other
personnel
(
e.
g.,
students)
that
utilize
hazardous
materials
in
operations.
In
all
circumstances,
colleges
and
universities
are
assumed
to
already
train
their
employees
to
meet
their
responsibilities
and
cover
OSHA
17
Based
on
communications
with
college
and
university
personnel
familiar
with
current
practices
(
Backus,
B.,
2005).

18
It
is
important
to
note
that
for
any
college
or
university
that
does
not
provide
training
for
employees,
training
cost
estimates
associated
with
the
proposed
laboratory
waste
rule
have
been
underestimated.

19
Backus,
B.
2005.
Personal
Communication.

4­
11
regulations.
17
The
existing
OSHA
training
is
assumed
to
meet
the
training
requirements
for
all
options
of
the
proposed
rule
making.
18
Training
costs
include
sessions
for
Department
of
Transportation
(
D.
O.
T.)
hazardous
waste
manifest
training,
hazardous
waste
operations,
emergency
response
(
Hazwopper),
and
hazard
communication
program
(
Hazcom).
The
estimated
number
of
employees
requiring
training
at
the
model
colleges
and
universities
are
presented
in
Table
4­
4.

Instruction
is
also
required
for
students
under
the
proposed
rule.
The
predominant
practice
by
colleges
and
universities
currently
is
to
provide
instruction
to
students
regarding
proper
laboratory
and
waste
management.
19
The
assumption
is
that
this
current
level
of
instruction
will
meet
the
proposed
regulatory
requirements.

Table
4­
4.
Estimated
Numbers
of
Lab
Workers
Large
College
or
University
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
50
laboratories)
LQG
SQG
EH&
S
Staff
22
8
Laboratory
Manager
501
164
Laboratory
Worker
2505
820
Art
Studio
Manager
13
9
Small
College
or
University
(
i.
e.,
less
than
50
laboratories)
LQG
SQG
EH&
S
Staff
2
2
Laboratory
Manager
22
20
Laboratory
Worker
110
100
Art
Studio
Manager
2
2
Source:
Estimates
derived
from
percentage­
based
estimates
from
the
National
Association
of
College
and
University
Business
Officers,
NACUBO
2005
hazardous
waste
survey,
http://
www.
nacubo.
org/
documents/
business_
topics/
HazardousWasteSurveyResults.
pdf.
20
OSHA
laboratory
standards
training
costs
were
considered
as
an
alternative
cost
estimate.
However
information
obtained
was
of
limited
value
in
estimating
training
costs,
and
accordingly
costs
presented
in
Table
4­
5
were
used
as
a
proxy.

4­
12
The
employee
numbers
assumes
one
laboratory
manger
per
chemical
lab,
five
lab
workers
per
chemical
lab,
and
one
manager
per
two
art
studios;
there
are
no
laboratory
workers
for
art
studios.

The
training
course
fees
were
estimated
using
approximate
rates
identified
using
an
online
review
of
course
providers.
The
courses
are
typically
priced
on
a
commodity
basis
and
should
not
vary
greatly
from
market
to
market.
Many
large
universities
have
a
web­
based
training
system
for
many
types
of
environmental
and
occupational
training
courses.
In
this
analysis,
the
training
system
utilized
is
assumed
to
remain
consistent
during
any
rule
modifications.
The
estimated
costs
per
person
for
each
training
course
is
presented
in
Table
4­
5.20
Table
4­
5.
Training
Course
Fees
Training
Course
Course
Fee
40
Hour
OSHA
Hazwopper
$
595.00
24
Hour
OSHA
Hazwopper
$
395.00
8
Hour
Annual
Hazwoper
Refresher
$
125.00
4
Hour
DOT
Manifest
Training
and
Annual
Refresher
$
85.00
4
hour
Hazcom
$
95.00
2
Hour
Hazcom
Annual
Refresher
$
47.50
Training
is
assumed
to
be
commensurate
with
the
employees'
responsibilities.
For
example,
a
laboratory
manager
that
completes
shipping
manifests
is
assumed
to
attend
a
24­
hour
OSHA
Hazwopper
training
course
and
a
4­
hour
course
on
preparing
manifests.
A
laboratory
manager
or
Worker
that
does
not
complete
manifests
will
not
attend
a
course
on
preparing
manifests.

An
annual
record­
keeping
cost
of
$
15
is
estimated
for
each
college
or
university
to
maintain
logs
of
training,
for
all
laboratory
workers
(
i.
e.,
copies
of
training
sign
in
sheets).

The
initial
training
costs
of
a
employee
is
annualized
using
a
capital
recovery
factor
over
the
estimated
period
of
employment.
A
laboratory
worker
is
assumed
to
turnover
every
two
years,
a
laboratory
manager
every
four
years,
and
EH&
S
staff
every
seven
years.
The
estimated
annual
cost
per
employee
is
presented
in
Table
4­
6.
4­
13
Table
4­
6.
Training
Costs
Employee
Type
Training
Courses
Attended
Total
Cost
per
Employee
EH&
S
°
40
Hour
OSHA
Hazwopper
°
4
Hour
DOT
Manifest
Training
and
Annual
Refresher
°
8
Hour
Annual
Hazwoper
Refresher
$
1,586
Laboratory
Manager/
Art
Studio
Manager
­
Preparing
Manifests
°
24
Hour
OSHA
Hazwopper
°
4
Hour
DOT
Manifest
Training
and
Annual
Refresher
°
8
Hour
Annual
Hazwoper
Refresher
$
908
Laboratory
Manager/
Art
Studio
Manager
­
Not
Preparing
Manifests
°
24
Hour
OSHA
Hazwopper
°
8
Hour
Annual
Hazwoper
Refresher
$
701
Laboratory
Worker
°
4
hour
Hazardous
Communications
Training
°
2
Hour
Hazardous
Communication
Annual
Refresher
$
164
Biennial
Reporting
Biennial
reporting
is
required
by
RCRA
in
40
CFR
part
262.41
for
large
quantity
generators.
The
proposed
rule
does
not
directly
effect
the
requirements
for
biennial
reporting;
however,
colleges
and
universities
may
be
able
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
and
avoid
the
reporting
requirements
and
reduce
their
annual
expenditures,
as
previously
discussed.

The
costs
for
the
biennial
reporting
is
estimated
using
the
Supporting
Statement
for
EPA
Information
Collection
Request
976.10
"
The
2001
Hazardous
Waste
Report"
­
September
19,
2000,
revised
November
22,
2000
(
ICR
976.10).
The
ICR
presents
annual
labor
burden
for
reading
and
preparing
the
Site
Identification
Form
and
Form
GM.
The
median
number
of
Form
GM
pages
reported
for
LQGs,
11
pages,
is
used
to
determine
the
annual
burden
for
filling
out
the
Form
GM
pages.
The
total
annual
burden
for
LQGs
is
estimated
as
$
443
(
2004$).
The
annual
labor
burden
is
summarized
in
Table
4­
7.
4­
14
Table
4­
7.
Biennial
Reporting
Costs
Employee
Classification
Employee
Position
Annual
Labor
Burden
(
hrs)

Managerial
Management
1.13
Technical
EH&
S
Staff
4.79
Clerical
Clerical
0.63
General
Administration
Annual
labor
burden
for
the
miscellaneous
management
of
the
generator
status,
record­
keeping,
assuring
compliance
with
regulations
for
the
corresponding
generator
status,
etc.,
is
included
in
the
general
administration
costs.
The
hourly
burden
is
based
on
professional
judgement.
A
LQG
has
an
estimated
annual
burden
of
12
hours
of
technical
EH&
S
staff
time,
8
hours
for
a
SQG,
and
4
hours
for
a
CESQG.
The
estimated
annual
costs
is
$
782,
$
521,
and
$
261,
respectively,
in
2004
dollars.

Contingency
Planning
The
proposed
rule
does
not
directly
affect
contingency
planning
requirements.
However,
LQGs
who
are
able
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
rule
are
expected
to
experience
a
reduction
in
costs
because
they
no
longer
have
to
meet
the
contingency
planning
requirements.

Contingency
planning
costs
cover
the
requirements
as
stated
in
40
CFR
264
Subpart
D
relating
to
the
development
of
a
contingency
plan.
The
basis
for
the
estimates
was
taken
from
the
Estimating
Costs
for
the
Economic
Benefits
of
RCRA
Noncompliance,
prepared
for
the
Office
of
Regulatory
Enforcement,
USEPA,
dated
September
1994,
and
presented
in
Table
4­
8.
Colleges
and
universities
generating
more
than
1,000
kilograms
per
month
of
hazardous
waste
(
i.
e.,
Large
Quantity
Generators)
are
required
to
prepare
and
maintain
a
contingency
plan.
Costs
were
estimated
using
the
labor
rates
presented
above.
The
cost
includes
labor
for
a
drafter,
process
technician,
an
engineer,
and
a
manager,
for
a
total
expense
of
$
1,574
(
2004$).
This
cost
is
incurred
once.
Costs
incurred
for
updating
the
contingency
plan
is
included
in
the
General
Administrative
cost.

Table
4­
8.
Contingency
Planning
Costs
Employee
Classification
Employee
Position
One
Time
Labor
Burden
(
hrs)

Managerial
Management
3
Technical
EH&
S
Staff
16
Drafter
Drafter
3
Process
Technician
Furnace,
Kiln,
Oven
Operators
11
4­
15
Laboratory
Management
Plan
A
laboratory
management
plan
is
assumed
to
be
drafted
from
an
existing
chemical
hygiene
plan.
The
redrafting
of
the
chemical
hygiene
plan
to
include
a
laboratory
management
plan
is
estimated
to
require
40
hours
of
technical
drafting,
and
review
by
an
oversight
committee
consisting
of
four
persons.
A
total
of
eight
hours
is
estimate
for
the
oversight
committee.
The
labor
burden
is
estimated
using
the
opinion
of
Dr.
Bruce
Backus,
Assistant
Vice
Chancellor,
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
at
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis.
The
total
cost
of
initially
preparing
the
laboratory
management
plan
is
estimated
at
$
3,093
(
2004$).
This
cost
is
incurred
once.
This
cost
includes
40
hours
of
EH&
S
staff
labor
and
8
hours
of
Professor
Labor
for
review.
An
annual
labor
burden
of
four
hours
of
EH&
S
labor
is
estimated
to
maintain
and
update
the
laboratory
management
plan.
The
annual
cost
for
updates
to
the
laboratory
management
plan
is
estimated
as
$
261.

Notification
A
one
time
cost
of
notifying
the
regulating
agency
regarding
the
"
opt­
in"
decision
of
the
college
or
university
is
required
to
be
subject
to
the
proposed
regulations.
The
Agency
is
not
proposing
any
specific
format
for
these
notices,
but
the
notification
must
include
the
name
and
address
of
the
college
or
university,
the
EPA
ID
number(
s),
the
name
and
phone
number
of
a
contact
person
at
the
college
or
university,
and
the
date
that
the
college
or
university
will
comply
with
or
withdraw
from
the
alternative
regulations.
Colleges
and
universities
may
provide
the
information
required
in
a
letter
or
by
submitting
a
completed
EPA
Form
8700­
12
(
or
commensurate
state
forms).
The
costs
for
the
notification
requirement
used
in
this
analysis
is
a
letter
providing
the
necessary
information.
Hourly
burden
estimates
for
both
the
letter
notification
and
notification
using
EPA
Form
8700­
12
are
presented
in
Table
4­
9.
The
total
cost
preparing
the
notification
letter
and
retaining
in
the
college
or
university
records
is
estimated
at
$
39
(
2004$).
The
total
cost
preparing
the
EPA
Form
8700­
12
and
retaining
in
the
college
or
university
records
is
estimated
at
$
116.

Table
4­
9.
Notification
Costs
Employee
Classification
Employee
Position
Letter
Notification
1/
EPA
Form
8700­
12
Notification
2/

Annual
Labor
Burden
(
hrs)

Managerial
Management
0.50
0.64
Technical
EH&
S
Staff
0
1.06
Clerical
Clerical
0.30
0.14
1/
Source:
Supporting
Statement
for
EPA
Information
Collection
Request
Number
261.14
"
Notification
of
Regulated
Waste
Activity"
­
September
1,
2002.
2/
Source:
Estimates
derived
based
on
best
professional
judgement
Labeling
Currently,
labeling
of
the
hazardous
waste
containers
is
assumed
to
be
conducted
by
the
EH&
S
staff
at
the
laboratory
on
a
monthly
basis.
The
container
would
have
been
labeled
with
the
21
Under
the
proposed
regulation,
the
hazardous
waste
determination
can
be
completed
at
the
laboratory
or
CAA.
For
cost
modeling
purposes
it
is
assumed
to
be
made
at
the
CAA.

4­
16
chemical
contents
at
the
time
of
generation
by
a
laboratory
worker
or
manager.
The
EH&
S
staff
will
re­
label
the
containers
as
hazardous
waste
if
appropriate
(
i.
e.,
confirm
the
hazardous
waste
determination)
and
include
the
required
information
on
the
label
prior
to
moving
the
hazardous
waste
to
the
CAA.
Under
the
proposed
regulations,
the
laboratory
manager
will
label
the
containers
as
"
unwanted
material"
and
other
information
to
allow
a
RCRA­
trained
individual
to
make
a
determination
if
the
contents
are
hazardous
waste.
The
unwanted
materials
will
then
be
transferred
to
the
CAA
for
the
EH&
S
staff
to
make
the
HW
determination.
21
The
EH&
S
staff
will
re­
label
the
containers
as
hazardous
wastes
as
necessary
and
all
other
necessary
information.

The
cost
for
a
label
is
estimated
using
the
online
purchase
site
www.
uline.
com.
The
label
currently
used
for
identifying
the
contents
of
a
container
as
hazardous
waste
or
otherwise
identifying
the
contents
of
the
container
is
estimated
to
cost
$
0.064
per
label
(
Uline
model
number
S­
2577).
The
proposed
Subpart
K
requirement
for
a
label
is
estimated
to
cost
$
0.13
per
label
(
Uline
model
number
S­
369)
and
contains
the
space
to
identify
the
contents,
accumulation
start
dates,
and
any
other
comments
regarding
the
hazardous
nature
of
the
contents.

The
cost
basis
for
labeling
a
container
is
estimated
using
the
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
820.09
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards,
November
3,
2004.
A
label
applied
in
the
current
regulatory
environment
is
estimated
to
have
a
labor
burden
of
5
minutes
per
label.
The
proposed
regulation
is
estimated
to
add
approximately
25
percent
to
the
labeling
labor
burden
(
6
minutes
per
label).
The
actual
cost
of
the
labeling
depends
on
who
is
completing
the
label.
The
following
formula
was
used
to
determine
the
loaded,
inflated
labor
rates:

Label
cost
(
0.064
per
label
or
0.13
per
label)
+
time
to
fill
out
label
(
5
or
6
minutes)
*
Labor
rate
for
EH&
S
or
Laboratory
Manager
($
65.15
or
$
30.45
per
hour
)

So
the
current
regulation
label
cost
is
calculated
as:
0.064
per
label
+
0.0833
hr
*
$
30.45
per
hour
=
$
2.60
per
label
The
following
table
presents
the
various
alternatives
and
costs.

Table
4­
10.
Biennial
Reporting
Costs
Employee
Classification
Labeling
Scenario
Cost
per
Container
Labeled
(
2004$)

Current
Regulations:
LQGs/
SQGs
Laboratory
Worker
At
the
laboratory
in
conjunction
with
a
hazardous
waste
determination
$
2.60
EH&
S
Staff
At
the
laboratory
in
conjunction
with
a
hazardous
waste
determination
$
5.49
Table
4­
10.
Biennial
Reporting
Costs
22Email
Re:
FW:
EPA
Laboratory
Waste
Management
rule
to
Craig
Simons
of
DPRA
from
Dr.
Bruce
Backus,
Assistant
Vice
Chancellor,
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
at
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis,
August
1,
2005
4­
17
Proposed
Regulations:
LQGs/
SQGs
Laboratory
Manager
At
the
lab
as
"
unwanted
material"
$
3.30
Laboratory
Manager
At
the
lab
in
conjunction
with
a
hazardous
waste
determination
$
2.67
EH&
S
Staff
At
CAA
by
EH&
S
staff
in
conjunction
with
a
hazardous
waste
determination
$
5.56
Hazardous
Waste
Determination
Wastes
that
are
generated
in
a
laboratory
are
assumed
to
be
placed
in
a
hood.
The
containers
are
assumed
to
be
labeled
with
the
name
of
the
chemical
or
chemicals
that
were
used
in
the
generation
of
the
waste,
so
that
a
hazardous
waste
determination
can
be
made.

The
costs
for
the
hazardous
waste
determination
is
estimated
using
the
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
820.09
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards,
November
3,
2004.
The
hazardous
waste
determination
is
assumed
to
be
completed
primarily
using
process
knowledge.
Costs
for
chemical
analysis
are
not
estimated
as
the
vast
majority
of
chemical
constituents
will
be
known
in
a
laboratory
environment.
Additionally,
the
university
staff
typically
is
conservative
in
the
determination
of
hazardous
waste
and
will
generally
assume
a
waste
is
hazardous
unless
there
is
rational
to
make
a
non­
hazardous
determination22.

On­
Site
Travel
The
current
satellite
accumulation
area
regulations
require
that
the
hazardous
waste
determination
and
hazardous
waste
container
labeling
occur
at
the
point
of
generation.
The
laboratory
manager
or
an
EH&
S
staff
is
assumed
to
perform
the
HW
determination
and
labeling
prior
to
the
on­
site
transfer
of
the
hazardous
waste
to
the
CAA
or
pickup
by
a
contractor
for
disposal.
For
colleges
and
universities
with
a
CAA,
it
is
assumed
the
HW
determination
and
labeling
is
performed
by
EH&
S
staff
at
the
laboratory.
For
colleges
and
universities
without
a
CAA,
it
is
assumed
the
HW
determination
and
labeling
is
performed
by
the
laboratory
manager.
To
conduct
the
HW
determination
at
colleges
and
universities
with
a
CAA,
EH&
S
staff
are
required
to
travel
to
the
laboratory.
The
EH&
S
staff
is
assumed
to
prepare
eight
labels
per
trip
for
a
LQG,
four
for
a
SQG.
This
assumption
is
based
on
quarterly
visits
per
laboratory
for
a
LQG
and
annual
visits
per
laboratory
for
a
SQG,
a
consistent
generation
rate
(
nine
pounds
per
month
for
LQGs,
four
pounds
per
month
for
SQGs),
and
each
container
is
approximately
one
pint
in
size.
A
20
minute
trip
per
laboratory
is
assumed
for
a
5
mile
trip
by
vehicle.
A
per
mile
cost
of
$
0.405
is
estimated
based
on
4­
18
the
Federal
Register
published
Amendment
2005­
01
to
the
Federal
Travel
Regulation
(
FTR).
The
total
travel
cost
per
label
prepared
for
a
LQG
is
$
2.97
and
for
a
SQG
is
$
5.94.

Under
the
proposed
rule,
travel
of
an
EH&
S
to
the
laboratory
for
the
HW
determination
and
labeling
is
not
necessary;
therefore,
the
proposed
rule
costs
for
travel
is
zero.

Manifests
The
proposed
rulemaking
may
affect
hazardous
waste
manifesting
costs
for
colleges
and
universities
with
CAAs.
Furthermore,
if
a
college
or
university
is
able
to
maintain
a
status
of
CESQG
(
rather
than
LQG
or
SQG)
under
the
rule,
that
college
or
university
will
benefit
from
lower
waste
management
costs,
including
manifest
costs.

In
general,
under
the
current
hazardous
waste
regulations,
hazardous
wastes
are
tracked
through
the
use
of
a
hazardous
waste
manifest
which
accompanies
each
waste
shipment.
Manifesting
costs
were
obtained
from
the
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
801.14
"
Requirements
for
Generators,
Transporters,
and
Waste
Management
Facilities
Under
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System.",
January
31,
2002.
Also,
costs
for
making
and
maintaining
copies
are
included.
A
manifest
is
completed
by
a
EH&
S
staff
for
colleges
and
universities
with
CAAs.
For
colleges
and
universities
without
CAAs,
the
manifest
is
completed
by
a
laboratory
manager.
The
labor
burden
and
cost
per
manifest
is
presented
in
Table
4­
11.

Table
4­
11.
Manifest
Costs
Generation
Status
Technical
Labor
Burden
Hours
per
Manifest
Clerical
Labor
Burden
Hours
per
Manifest
Total
Cost
per
Manifest
(
2004$)
Prepared
by
EH&
S
Staff
Total
Cost
per
Manifest
(
2004$)
Prepared
by
Lab
Manager
LQG
0.417
0.2815
$
33.45
$
19.70
SQG
0.4065
0.2715
$
33.23
$
19.13
For
LQG
colleges
and
universities,
a
pickup
of
waste
is
assumed
for
each
laboratory
on
a
quarterly
basis
under
both
the
current
and
proposed
regulation.
For
SQGs,
transfer
of
laboratory
hazardous
wastes
occurs
annually
under
the
current
rule,
and
semi­
annually
under
the
proposed
rule.
Because
of
the
smaller
waste
volume
per
laboratory
pick­
up,
it
is
assumed
that
more
laboratories
can
be
visited
each
day.

A
manifest
is
required
for
the
hazardous
waste
removed
from
the
laboratories.
That
is,
the
number
of
drums
lab­
packed
on
each
day
is
assumed
to
be
a
shipment
and
requires
a
manifest.
Table
4­
12
presents
the
number
of
manifests
per
quarter
and
the
number
of
drums
in
a
shipment.
4­
19
Table
4­
12.
Number
of
Manifest
Required
Generator
Size
Number
of
Laboratory's
visited
per
day
for
waste
collection
Number
of
laboratories
at
Model
College
or
University
Number
of
Drums
per
Manifest
Number
of
Collection
Days/
Manifest
per
year
LQG
w/
o
CAA
Current
regulation
8
501
2
252
Proposed
rule
8
501
2
252
LQG
with
CAA
Current
regulation
N/
A
501
26
4
Proposed
rule
N/
A
501
26
4
SQG
w/
o
CAA
Current
regulation
8
167
1
42
Proposed
rule
10
167
1
34
SQG
with
CAA
Current
regulation
N/
A
167
5.5
2
Proposed
rule
N/
A
167
5.5
2
Hazardous
Waste
Off­
Site
Transportation
and
Disposal
The
transportation
costs
are
estimated
on
a
per
shipment
basis
using
RACER
2003
and
inflated
to
2004
dollars.
A
shipment
transportation
cost
is
estimated
as
$
361.87
(
2004$).
This
is
a
minimum
shipment
cost
for
shipments
of
up
to
40
drums.
The
shipments
are
assumed
to
be
transported
a
distance
of
less
than
150
miles.
The
minimum
shipment
cost
covers
transportation
costs
for
distances
up
to
200
miles.
For
transportation
distances
greater
than
200
miles,
the
per
shipment
cost
will
decrease.
However,
the
colleges
and
universities
are
assumed
to
be
near
urban
centers
that
will
have
a
commercial
hazardous
waste
TSDF
within
150
miles.
Therefore,
the
economic
savings
for
trips
greater
than
150
miles
is
assumed
not
to
apply.

The
hazardous
waste
disposal
costs
include
supplying
the
drum,
packing,
loading,
and
incineration.
The
costs
for
the
drum,
loading,
and
incineration
is
estimated
on
a
per
drum
basis
using
RACER
2003
and
inflated
to
2004
dollars.
The
waste
chemicals
are
assumed
to
be
packed
23
Email
from
John
DeLaHunt
to
Rachel
Alford,
EPA
April
08,
2005
4­
20
in
a
D.
O.
T.
approved
drum.
The
drum
is
estimated
to
cost
$
89.76
per
drum.
The
cost
to
hire
contractors
to
lab
pack
a
drum
ranges
from
$
300
to
$
600
per
drum23.
A
midpoint
of
$
450
per
drum
is
estimated
to
lab
pack
a
drum.
Costs
to
lab
pack
a
drum
was
not
modified
between
packing
from
laboratories
and
CAAs.
The
cost
for
loading
a
drum
on
a
waste
hauler
truck
is
estimated
as
$
6.03
per
drum
(
2004$).
The
incineration
of
a
55­
gallon
drum
is
estimated
to
cost
$
1,922
(
2004$).

The
cost
to
supply
the
drum,
pack
the
wastes,
load,
and
incinerate
the
waste
is
on
a
per
drum
basis.
The
amount
of
hazardous
waste
managed
is
not
estimated
to
change
due
to
the
proposed
rulemaking;
therefore,
the
disposal
costs
of
the
hazardous
wastes
is
not
estimated
to
be
affected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking.

The
cost
for
transportation
of
hazardous
wastes
are
primarily
dependant
on
the
on­
site
accumulation
duration
requirements.
The
shorter
the
allowed
duration
for
accumulating
hazardous
wastes
at
a
lab,
the
greater
the
number
of
hazardous
waste
collection
events
and
shipments.
Under
the
current
regulatory
environment,
the
hazardous
wastes
from
laboratories
are
assumed
to
be
transferred
to
a
CAA
on
a
quarterly
basis
for
LQGs
and
annually
for
SQGs;
under
the
proposed
rule
SQGs
are
assumed
to
transfer
the
waste
semi­
annually.
For
colleges
and
universities
without
a
CAA,
the
wastes
are
disposed
on
a
quarterly
basis
for
LQGs,
and
twice
a
year
for
SQGs,
both
pre­
rule
and
post­
rule.

4.5
Summary
Tables
Presenting
Baseline
Impact
and
Incremental
Costs
Summary
tables
presenting
estimated
baseline,
impact
and
incremental
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
rulemaking
are
presented
in
Tables
4­
13a
through
4­
15b.
These
tables
show
costs
associated
with
the
lower
bound
hazardous
waste
laboratory
generation
estimate.
4­
21
Table
4­
13a.
Estimated
Baseline
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Large
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
SQGs
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Large
Large
Large
Large
Laboratories
Training
annual
797,352
866,071
262,286
283,514
On­
site
Travel
annual
50,554
0
3,894
0
HW
Determination
annual
554,904
259,341
21,370
9,988
Labeling
annual
93,574
44,314
3,604
1,707
Manifest
Cost
annual
134
4,934
66
784
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
1,447
90,649
724
14,837
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
68,504
68,504
2,583
2,583
Facility
Costs
BRS
Reporting
annual
443
443
0
0
General
Administration
annual
782
782
521
521
Contingency
Planning
initial
1,574
1,574
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
initial
0
0
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
annual
0
0
0
0
Notification
initial
0
0
0
0
Art
Studios
Training
annual
9,127
11,816
6,324
8,185
On­
site
Travel
annual
2,624
0
1,816
0
HW
Determination
annual
28,797
13,459
2,345
1,096
Labeling
annual
4,856
2,300
396
187
Table
4­
13a.
Estimated
Baseline
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Large
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
SQGs
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Large
Large
Large
Large
4­
22
Manifest
Cost
annual
0
256
0
86
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
0
4,704
0
1,628
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
3,555
3,555
284
284
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
The
large
models
represented
in
this
table
are
assumed
to
have
more
than
50
laboratories
and
five
studio
laboratories.
4­
23
Table
4­
13b.
Estimated
Baseline
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Small
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
SQGs
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Small
Small
Small
Small
Laboratories
Training
annual
36,667
38,045
33,624
34,588
On­
site
Travel
annual
2,220
0
475
0
HW
Determination
annual
24,367
11,388
2,606
1,218
Labeling
annual
4,109
1,946
439
208
Manifest
Cost
annual
134
217
66
808
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
1,447
995
724
905
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
63,412
63,412
2,493
2,493
Facility
Costs
BRS
Reporting
annual
443
443
0
0
General
Administration
annual
782
782
521
521
Contingency
Planning
initial
1,574
1,574
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
initial
0
0
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
annual
0
0
0
0
Notification
initial
0
0
0
0
Art
Studios
Training
annual
1,417
1,830
1,417
1,830
On­
site
Travel
annual
303
0
303
0
HW
Determination
annual
3,323
1,553
391
183
Labeling
annual
560
265
66
31
Table
4­
13b.
Estimated
Baseline
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Small
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
SQGs
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Small
Small
Small
Small
4­
24
Manifest
Cost
annual
0
30
0
14
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
0
543
0
271
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
8,647
8,647
374
374
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
The
small
models
represented
in
this
table
are
assumed
to
have
less
than
50
laboratories
and
five
studio
laboratories.
4­
25
Table
4­
14a.
Estimated
Proposed
Rule
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Large
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Laboratories
Training
annual
797,352
866,071
797,352
866,071
262,286
283,514
262,286
283,514
On­
site
Travel
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HW
Determination
annual
554,904
259,341
554,904
259,341
21,370
9,988
21,370
9,988
Labeling
annual
150,942
45,438
150,942
45,438
5,813
1,750
3,604
1,707
Manifest
Cost
annual
134
3,947
66
627
66
627
66
784
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
1,447
90,649
724
45,325
724
14,837
362
7,418
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
68,504
68,504
68,504
68,504
2,583
2,583
64
64
Facility
Costs
BRS
Reporting
annual
443
443
0
0
0
0
0
0
General
Administration
annual
782
782
521
521
521
521
521
521
Contingency
Planning
initial
1,574
1,574
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
initial
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
0
0
Table
4­
14a.
Estimated
Proposed
Rule
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Large
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
4­
26
Lab
Management
Plan
annual
261
261
261
261
261
261
0
0
Notification
initial
39
39
39
39
39
39
0
0
Art
Studios
Training
annual
9,127
11,816
9,127
11,816
6,324
8,185
6,324
8,185
Travel
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HWID
annual
28,797
13,459
28,797
13,459
2,345
1,096
2,345
1,096
Labeling
annual
7,833
2,358
7,833
2,358
638
192
396
187
Manifest
Cost
annual
0
205
0
102
0
71
0
34
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
0
4,704
0
2,352
0
1,628
0
814
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
3,555
3,555
3,555
3,555
284
284
7
7
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
The
large
models
represented
in
this
table
are
assumed
to
have
more
than
50
laboratories
and
five
studio
laboratories.
4­
27
Table
4­
14b.
Estimated
Proposed
Rule
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Small
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Laboratories
Training
annual
36,667
38,045
36,667
38,045
33,624
34,588
33,624
34,588
On­
site
Travel
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HW
Determination
annual
24,367
11,388
24,367
11,388
2,606
1,218
2,606
1,218
Labeling
annual
6,628
1,995
6,628
1,995
709
213
709
213
Manifest
Cost
annual
134
173
67
87
66
79
66
79
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
1,447
3,981
724
1,990
724
1,809
724
905
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
63,412
63,412
63,412
63,412
2,493
2,493
62
62
Facility
Costs
BRS
Reporting
annual
443
443
0
0
0
0
0
0
General
Administration
annual
782
782
521
521
521
521
521
521
Contingency
Planning
initial
1,574
1,574
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
initial
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
annual
261
261
261
261
261
261
0
0
Notification
initial
39
39
39
39
39
39
0
0
Art
Studios
Training
annual
1,417
1,830
1,417
1,830
1,417
1,830
1,402
1,816
On­
site
Travel
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HW
Determination
annual
3,323
1,553
3,323
1,553
391
183
391
183
Labeling
annual
904
272
904
272
106
32
106
32
Table
4­
14b.
Estimated
Proposed
Rule
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Small
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
4­
28
Manifest
Cost
annual
0
24
0
12
0
11
0
6
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
0
543
0
271
0
271
0
136
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
8,647
8,647
8,647
8,647
374
374
9
9
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
The
small
models
represented
in
this
table
are
assumed
to
have
less
than
50
laboratories
and
five
studio
laboratories.
4­
29
Table
4­
15a.
Estimated
Incremental
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Large
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Laboratories
Training
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
On­
site
Travel
annual
(
50,554)
0
(
50,554)
0
(
3,894)
0
(
3,894)
0
HW
Determination
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Labeling
annual
57,368
1,124
57,368
1,124
2,209
43
0
0
Manifest
Cost
annual
0
(
987)
(
67)
(
4,306)
0
(
157)
0
0
Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
0
0
(
724)
(
45,325)
0
0
(
362)
(
7,418)

Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
2,520)
(
2,520)

Facility
Costs
BRS
Reporting
annual
0
0
(
443)
(
443)
0
0
0
0
General
Administration
annual
0
0
(
261)
(
261)
0
0
0
0
Contingency
Planning
initial
0
0
(
1,574)
(
1,574)
0
0
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
initial
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
annual
261
261
261
261
261
261
0
0
Notification
initial
39
39
39
39
39
39
0
0
Art
Studios
Training
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
On­
site
Travel
annual
(
2,624)
0
(
2,624)
0
(
1,816)
0
(
1,816)
0
Table
4­
15a.
Estimated
Incremental
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Large
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
4­
30
HW
Determination
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Labeling
annual
2,977
58
2,977
58
242
5
0
0
Manifest
Cost
annual
0
(
51)
0
(
154)
0
(
15)
0
(
52)

Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
0
0
0
(
2,352)
0
0
0
(
814)

Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
277)
(
277)

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
The
large
models
represented
in
this
table
are
assumed
to
have
more
than
50
laboratories
and
five
studio
laboratories.
4­
31
Table
4­
15b.
Estimated
Incremental
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Small
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Laboratories
Training
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
On­
site
Travel
annual
(
2,220)
0
(
2,220)
0
(
475)
0
(
475)
0
HW
Determination
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Labeling
annual
2,519
49
2,519
49
269
5
269
5
Manifest
Cost
annual
0
(
43)
(
67)
(
130)
0
(
729)
0
(
729)

Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
0
2,985
(
724)
995
0
905
0
0
Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
2,431)
(
2,431)

Facility
Costs
BRS
Reporting
annual
0
0
(
443)
(
443)
0
0
0
0
General
Administration
annual
0
0
(
261)
(
261)
0
0
0
0
Contingency
Planning
initial
0
0
(
1,574)
(
1,574)
0
0
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
initial
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
3,093
0
0
Lab
Management
Plan
annual
261
261
261
261
261
261
0
0
Notification
initial
39
39
39
39
39
39
0
0
Art
Studios
Training
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
15)
(
15)

On­
site
Travel
annual
(
303)
0
(
303)
0
(
303)
0
(
303)
0
HW
Determination
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table
4­
15b.
Estimated
Incremental
College
and
University
Laboratory
Costs
by
Cost
Item
and
Model
(
Small
Models/
Low
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Volumes)
1/

Cost
Item
Frequency
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
4­
32
Labeling
annual
344
7
344
7
40
1
40
1
Manifest
Cost
annual
0
(
6)
0
(
18)
0
(
3)
0
(
9)

Drum
Transportation
Cost
annual
0
0
0
(
271)
0
0
0
(
136)

Drum
Disposal
Cost
annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
365)
(
365)

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
The
small
models
represented
in
this
table
are
assumed
to
have
less
than
50
laboratories
and
five
studio
laboratories.
5­
1
5.0
COST
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
In
this
chapter
cost
impacts
for
the
proposed
rule
are
presented.
In
Section
5.1,
aggregate
cost
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
are
presented,
based
on
the
model
colleges
and
universities,
methodology
and
assumptions
presented
in
Chapter
4.
In
Section
5.2,
average
cost
impacts
are
estimated,
expressed
as
total
annualized
costs
as
a
percentage
of
average
revenue.
Section
5.3
presents
aggregate
impacts
for
colleges
and
universities
expected
to
adopt
the
proposed
rule.
Section
5.4
briefly
summarizes
the
cost
impacts
expected
under
alternative
regulatory
Options
A
and
B.
The
final
section
contains
estimates
of
the
impacts
on
state
governments,
as
required
by
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
impact
estimates
presented
in
this
chapter
are
presented
as
annualized
costs.
Initial
and
capital
investment
costs
were
annualized
using
a
real
discount
rate
of
seven
(
7)
percent.
As
requested
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
an
alternative
assessment
using
a
three
(
3)
percent
discount
rate
was
completed
and
is
briefly
discussed
in
this
chapter.
Cost
impact
tables
corresponding
with
the
three
percent
discount
rate
are
presented
in
Appendix
B.
While
the
estimated
annualized
cost
savings
are
higher
using
the
three
percent
discount
rate,
the
number
of
facilities
expected
to
choose
to
be
regulated
under
the
proposed
rule
does
not
change
significantly.

5.1
Aggregate
Cost
Impacts
As
discussed
in
Chapter
3,
reliable
estimates
of
hazardous
waste
quantities
generated
by
college
and
university
laboratories
are
not
available
through
the
biennial
reporting
system
or
other
sources.
Consequently
the
Agency
has
estimated
a
range
of
waste
quantities,
believed
to
be
generated
by
college
and
university
laboratories.
As
presented
in
Table
3­
8,
the
estimated
annual
quantity
hazardous
waste
generated
at
college
and
university
laboratories
ranges
from
approximately
3,400
to
6,000
tons.
For
purposes
of
presentation,
impact
estimates
presented
in
the
tables
in
this
chapter
correspond
with
the
lower
(
3,400
tons
per
year)
estimate.
Corresponding
impacts
for
the
higher
hazardous
waste
volume
are
presented
in
Appendix
A.
However
the
summary
discussion
presented
in
this
chapter
addresses
the
range
of
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimates.

In
this
section
aggregate
cost
impacts
are
presented
as
if
the
rulemaking
was
mandatory
for
all
targeted
colleges
and
universities.
While
the
Agency
is
intending
to
promulgate
the
rule
as
an
optional
rule,
examining
aggregate
impacts
assuming
100
percent
opt­
in
rates
provides
background
and
understanding
for
estimates
presented
in
subsequent
sections.

Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
hazardous
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
12
months
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generators
(
LQGs)
to
small
quantity
generators
(
SQGs)
and
SQGs
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
(
CESQGs).
Based
on
the
review
of
the
generation
of
hazardous
waste
by
colleges
and
universities,
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
eight
percent
of
the
SQGs
are
assumed
to
be
able
to
reduce
their
generation
status
one
level
(
e.
g.,
from
LQG
to
SQG),
as
discussed
previously
in
Chapter
4.
Table
5­
1
shows
the
number
of
5­
2
colleges
and
universities
by
institution
type
and
laboratory
system
size,
including
those
colleges
and
universities
estimated
to
retain
a
lower
RCRA
generator
status
(
from
Table
4­
2).

Table
5­
2
presents
average
cost
impacts
for
each
model
college
or
university.
As
indicated,
LQGs
without
central
accumulation
areas
(
CAAs)
are
the
least
likely
to
benefit
from
the
proposed
rule,
with
annualized
impacts
estimated
to
range
from
approximately
$
3,000
to
over
$
6,000
per
year,
due
primarily
to
labeling
requirements.
Cost
estimates
for
LQGs
without
CAAs
using
a
three
percent
discount
rate
range
from
approximately
$
2,000
to
just
over
$
5,000
(
Appendix
B,
Table
B­
1).
LQGs
with
CAAs
and
less
than
50
laboratories
are
also
estimated
to
incur
increased
costs
under
the
proposed
rule.
The
only
LQGs
projected
to
incur
a
cost
savings
are
those
which
benefit
from
the
laboratory
clean­
out
incentives,
enabling
them
to
reduce
their
generator
status
to
SQG
and
large
LQGs
with
CAAs.

Small
quantity
generators,
like
LQGs,
are
more
likely
to
benefit
from
the
proposed
rulemaking
if
they
have
CAAs.
These
SQGs
experience
substantially
greater
reductions
in
on­
site
travel
costs
than
the
increases
associated
with
labeling
requirements.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
cost
modeling
assumptions,
and
the
results
presented
in
this
chapter,
are
somewhat
restrictive
in
that
they
do
not
address
the
large
variation
in
hazardous
waste
generation
and
management
practices
of
individual
colleges
and
universities.
Individual
colleges
and
universities
may
experience
cost
impact
which
vary
substantially
from
the
estimates
presented,
depending
especially
on
their
baseline
hazardous
waste
identification
practices
as
well
as
variations
in
annual
quantities
of
waste.

Table
5­
3
presents
aggregate
cost
impacts
for
all
colleges
and
universities
assuming
a
100
percent
opt­
in,
which
is
not
expected
given
that
the
rule
is
optional
for
post­
secondary
institutions.
Aggregate
cost
impacts
are
estimated
to
be
a
net
savings
of
approximately
$
2.0
million,
annualized
(
2004
dollar
basis,
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate),
given
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generation
estimate
of
8.8
tons
for
LQGs
and
0.32
tons
for
SQGs.
Corresponding
aggregate
annualized
cost
impacts
using
a
3
percent
discount
rate
are
estimated
to
be
a
net
savings
of
approximately
$
3.5
million.
5­
3
Table
5­
1.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Institution
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
167
20
71
9
121
57
11
5
461
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
29
4
13
1
408
192
36
17
700
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
7
1
3
0
48
23
4
2
88
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
1
0
161
75
14
7
259
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
3
1
1
0
42
20
4
2
73
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
0
0
144
67
12
6
230
Totals
208
26
89
10
924
434
81
39
1811
Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
8
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
5­
4
Table
5­
2.
Estimated
Average
Impact
Per
College
or
University
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
($
16,906)
$
2,876
($
19,975)
($
50,501)
($
878)
$
3,245
($
8,276)
($
10,702)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
$
2,430
$
6,354
($
639)
$
1,715
$
2,806
$
3,569
($
3,020)
($
3,303)

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
($
16,906)
$
2,876
($
19,975)
$
0
($
878)
$
3,245
($
8,276)
($
10,702)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
$
2,430
$
0
($
639)
$
0
$
2,806
$
3,569
($
3,020)
($
3,303)

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
($
16,906)
$
2,876
($
19,975)
$
0
($
878)
$
3,245
($
8,276)
($
10,702)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
$
2,430
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
2,806
$
3,569
($
3,020)
($
3,303)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
eight
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
5­
5
Table
5­
3.
Aggregate
Costs
of
Rulemaking
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50labs,

>
5studios
Large
(
2,823,222)
57,529
(
1,418,212)
(
454,507)
(
106,213)
184,948
(
91,041)
(
53,512)
(
4,704,231)

(<=
50labs,

<=
5studios)
Small
70,464
25,415
(
8,308)
1,715
1,144,711
685,208
(
108,726)
(
56,154)
1,754,325
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50labs,

>
5studios)
Large
(
118,339)
2,876
(
59,924)
­
(
42,134)
74,628
(
33,106)
(
21,405)
(
197,403)

(<=
50labs,

<=
5studios)
Small
2,430
­
(
639)
­
451,712
267,659
(
42,282)
(
23,122)
655,757
Vocational
(>
50labs,

>
5studios)
Large
(
50,717)
2,876
(
19,975)
­
(
36,867)
64,894
(
33,106)
(
21,405)
(
94,299)

(<=
50labs,

<=
5studios)
Small
2,430
­
­
­
404,016
239,109
(
36,242)
(
19,819)
589,493
Totals
(
2,916,954)
88,696
(
1,507,059)
(
452,792)
1,815,225
1,516,446
(
344,504)
(
195,418)
(
1,996,358)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Table
5­
3.
Aggregate
Costs
of
Rulemaking
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
5­
6
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
8
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
24
Based
on
state
rule
adoption
data
from
the
StATS
data
system
on
March
31,
2005.

25
Using
a
three
percent
real
discount
rate,
the
same
296
colleges
and
universities
are
expected
to
adopt
the
proposed
rule,
given
low
hazardous
waste
generation
estimate
(
Appendix
B,
Table
B­
3).
Given
the
higher
hazardous
waste
generation
estimate
203
colleges
and
universities
are
expected
to
adopt
the
proposed
rule
(
Appendix
B,
Table
B­
9).

5­
7
5.2
Average
College
and
University
Cost
Impacts
As
a
Percent
of
Revenue
Average
college
and
university
costs
as
a
percentage
of
total
revenue
are
presented
in
Table
5­
4.
Overall
impacts,
under
100
percent
adoption
range
from
a
cost
savings
of
3.3
percent
to
an
increased
cost
of
nearly
0.6
percent.
Using
a
three
percent
real
discount
rate,
overall
impacts
range
from
a
cost
savings
of
3.0
percent
to
an
increased
cost
of
nearly
0.5
percent
(
Appendix
B,
Table
B­
2).
Vocational
schools
account
for
the
most
extreme
impacts
given
that
they
have
only
modest
annual
revenues
of
$
0.6
million.

5.3
Expected
Adoption
Rates
and
Impacts
As
previously
noted,
the
proposed
rule
is
optional,
leaving
states
with
jurisdiction
over
their
RCRA
program
the
option
to
codify
the
rule
within
their
own
programs.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis
it
is
assumed
that
states
which
have
historically
adopted
at
least
85
percent
of
RCRA
rule
changes,
will
actually
codify
the
proposed
laboratory
waste
rule;
in
effect
this
eliminates
a
total
of
21
states.
24
As
a
result
of
this
assumption,
only
173
LQGs
and
666
SQGs
are
estimated
to
have
the
opportunity
to
adopt
the
rule.

Further
limiting
the
impacts
of
the
rule
is
the
fact
that
individual
institutions
will
have
the
opportunity
to
adopt
the
rule,
or
continue
operating
under
the
existing
rules.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis
it
is
assumed
that
only
those
colleges
and
universities
which
experience
a
decrease
in
cost
will
actually
adopt
the
rule.

Table
5­
5
shows
the
number
of
colleges
and
universities
expected
to
have
the
opportunity
to
adopt
the
proposed
rule
and
by
model
category.
In
total
there
are
296
colleges
and
universities
expected
to
adopt
the
proposed
rule,
given
low
hazardous
waste
generation
estimate
of
8.8
tons
per
year
for
LQGs
and
0.32
tons
per
year
for
SQGs
shown
in
Table
5­
5.
Given
the
higher
hazardous
waste
generation
estimate
of
15.3
and
0.62
tons
per
year
for
LQGs
and
SQGs,
respectively
(
see
Appendix
A,
Table
A5­
5),
only
195
colleges
and
universities
are
estimated
to
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.
25
Aggregate
impacts
from
the
adoption
of
the
proposed
rule
are
presented
in
Table
5­
6.
Aggregate
cost
savings
are
estimated
to
be
$
2.9
million
per
year
on
an
annualized
basis.
Given
the
higher
hazardous
waste
generation
estimate
of
15.3
and
0.62
tons
per
year
for
LQGs
and
SQGs,
respectively,
cost
savings
are
estimated
to
be
$
0.6
million
per
year
(
see
Appendix
A,
Table
A5­
26
Using
a
three
percent
real
discount
rate,
aggregate
cost
savings
are
estimated
to
range
from
$
3.1
to
only
$
0.7
million
per
year,
given
the
low
and
high
hazardous
waste
generation
rates
(
Appendix
B,
Tables
B­
4
and
B­
10).

5­
8
6).
26
5­
9
Table
5­
4.
Estimated
Average
Impact
Per
College
and
University
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
As
a
Percentage
of
Annual
Revenue1
Annual
Revenue
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

Institution
$
million
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Impacts
as
a
Percent
of
Annual
Revenue
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
58.5
­
0.03%
0.00%
­
0.03%
­
0.09%
0.00%
0.01%
­
0.01%
­
0.02%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
58.5
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
­
0.01%
­
0.01%

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
25.1
­
0.07%
0.01%
­
0.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
­
0.03%
­
0.04%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
25.1
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
­
0.01%
­
0.01%

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
0.6
­
2.82%
0.48%
­
3.33%
0.00%
­
0.15%
0.54%
­
1.38%
­
1.78%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
0.6
0.40%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.47%
0.59%
­
0.50%
­
0.55%

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
8
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
5­
10
Table
5­
5.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
the
Proposed
Rule1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
87
0
37
5
55
0
5
2
191
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
7
0
0
0
16
8
31
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
4
0
2
0
22
0
2
1
31
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
3
10
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
1
0
19
0
2
1
25
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
93
0
48
5
96
0
36
18
296
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
8
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
5­
11
Table
5­
6.
Aggregate
Expected
Cost
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs**
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs**
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
1,466,664
)
0
(
736,761)
(
236,116)
(
47,859)
0
(
41,023)
(
24,113)
(
2,552,537
)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
(
4,316)
0
0
0
(
48,992)
(
25,303)
(
78,611)

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
61,477)
0
(
31,131)
0
(
18,986)
0
(
14,918)
(
9,645)
(
136,156)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
(
332)
0
0
0
(
19,052)
(
10,419)
(
29,803)

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
26,347)
0
(
10,377)
0
(
16,612)
0
(
14,918)
(
9,645)
(
77,899)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
16,331)
(
8,930)
(
25,261)

Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
(
1,554,488
)
0
(
782,917)
(
236,116)
(
83,457)
0
(
155,233)
(
88,055)
(
2,900,267
)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
27
Based
on
state
rule
adoption
data
from
the
StATS
data
system
on
March
31,
2005.

5­
12
5.4
Aggregate
Cost
Impacts
Under
Regulatory
Options
A
and
B
The
Agency
identified
alternative
regulatory
options
to
the
proposed
rule.
Option
A
is
more
stringent
than
the
proposed
rule,
with
increased
restrictions
on
waste
accumulation
times
and
other
factors.
Option
B
is
less
stringent
than
the
proposed
rule.
A
summary
of
the
options
compared
to
the
current
rules
and
the
proposed
rule
were
previously
presented
in
Table
2­
1.

Cost
impacts
associated
with
Options
A
and
B
are
presented
in
Tables
5­
7
and
5­
8
respectively,
assuming
100
percent
adoption.
Option
A,
the
more
stringent
option,
has
an
aggregate
cost
increase
for
the
universe
of
colleges
and
universities
of
$
6.3
million.
Option
B
has
an
aggregate
cost
savings
of
$
14.7
million
per
year.
This
compares
with
the
aggregate
cost
savings
of
the
Agency's
proposed
rule
of
just
over
$
64,000
per
year
(
Table
5­
3).

Like
the
proposed
rule,
the
alternative
options
are
not
expected
to
be
adopted
by
the
universe
of
colleges
and
universities
with
laboratories.
As
previously
discussed
in
Section
5.3,
it
is
assumed
that
states
which
have
historically
adopted
at
least
85
percent
of
RCRA
rule
changes,
will
actually
codify
the
proposed
rule;
in
effect
this
eliminates
a
total
of
21
states.
27
As
a
result
of
this
assumption,
only
173
LQGs
and
666
SQGs
are
estimated
to
have
the
opportunity
to
adopt
the
rule.
Further
limiting
the
impacts
of
the
rule
is
the
fact
that
individual
institutions
will
have
the
opportunity
to
adopt
the
rule,
or
continue
operating
under
the
existing
rules.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis
it
is
assumed
that
only
those
colleges
and
universities
which
experience
a
decrease
in
cost
will
actually
adopt
the
rule.
Tables
5­
9
and
5­
10
present
the
number
of
colleges
and
universities
expected
to
adopt
the
alternative
options,
given
low
hazardous
waste
generation
estimate
of
8.8
tons
per
year
for
LQGs
and
0.32
tons
per
year
for
SQGs.
The
total
number
of
colleges
and
universities
expected
to
adopt
Option
A
is
291,
while
681
are
expected
to
adopt
Option
B.
Given
the
higher
hazardous
waste
generation
estimate
of
15.3
and
0.62
tons
per
year
for
LQGs
and
SQGs,
respectively,
only
190
colleges
and
universities
are
estimated
to
adopt
Option
A,
while
681
are
estimated
to
adopt
Option
B
(
see
Appendix
A,
Tables
A5­
9
and
10).
5­
13
Table
5­
7.
Aggregate
Costs
of
Option
A
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50labs,

>
5studios
Large
($
6,664,999)
$
4,049,582
($
3,051,542)
$
1,729,115
($
487,391)
$
5,077,246
($
114,819)
($
5,936)
$
531,256
(<=
50labs,

<=
5studios)
Small
$
38,816
$
25,527
($
22,495)
$
1,743
$
955,938
$
685,499
($
125,383)
($
56,128)
$
1,503,517
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50labs,

>
5studios)
Large
($
279,371)
$
202,479
($
128,938)
$
0
($
193,345)
$
2,048,713
($
41,752)
($
2,374)
$
1,605,411
(<=
50labs,

<=
5studios)
Small
$
1,338
$
0
($
1,730)
$
0
$
377,220
$
267,773
($
48,760)
($
23,112)
$
572,730
Vocational
(>
50labs,

>
5studios)
Large
($
119,731)
$
202,479
($
42,979)
$
0
($
169,177)
$
1,781,490
($
41,752)
($
2,374)
$
1,607,955
(<=
50labs,

<=
5studios)
Small
$
1,338
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
337,390
$
239,211
($
41,794)
($
19,810)
$
516,335
Totals
($
7,022,608)
$
4,480,067
($
3,247,686)
$
1,730,858
$
820,634
$
10,099,931
($
414,260)
($
109,734)
$
6,337,204
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

Notes:
Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
Option
Aspecifies
a
shorter
maximum
accumulation
time
in
the
laboratory
(
3
months
versus
6
months
under
the
base
option).
The
cost
model
assumed
a
shorter
accumulation
time
of
only
30
days,
and
accordingly
there
were
no
cost
increases
shown
in
the
model
from
this
change.
To
the
extent
laboratories
accumulate
material
for
longer
than
3
months,
costs
would
be
higher
for
them
under
this
option.
Table
5­
7.
Aggregate
Costs
of
Option
A
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
5­
14
Option
A
specifies
there
may
be
additional
record
keeping
requirements.
No
additional
record
keeping
was
incorporated
into
the
model.
As
the
Agency
receives
comments,
additional
costs
for
recordkeeping
may
be
specified
and
costs
for
Option
A
will
increase.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
5­
15
Table
5­
8.
Aggregate
Costs
of
Option
B
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
$/
year
(>
50labs,

>
5studios
Large
(
7,231,579)
1,501
(
3,292,424)
(
479,720)
(
897,908)
(
7,751)
(
132,436)
(
53,512)
(
12,096,831)

(<=
50labs,<=

5studios)
Small
(
59,572)
11,956
(
66,600)
(
1,649)
(
428,283)
34,101
(
125,383)
(
56,128)
(
691,558)

2­
yearC/
U
(>
50labs,>
5st
udios)
Large
(
303,120)
75
(
139,117)
­
(
356,195)
(
3,128)
(
48,159)
(
21,405)
(
871,047)

(<=
50labs,<=

5studios)
Small
(
2,054)
­
(
5,123)
­
(
169,004)
13,321
(
48,760)
(
23,112)
(
234,732)

Vocational
(>
50labs,>
5st
udios)
Large
(
129,909)
75
(
46,372)
­
(
311,670)
(
2,720)
(
48,159)
(
21,405)
(
560,159)

(<=
50labs,<=

5studios)
Small
(
2,054)
­
­
­
(
151,159)
11,900
(
41,794)
(
19,810)
(
202,917)

Totals
GRAND
TOTAL
(
14.8
million)
(
7,728,288)
13,607
(
3,549,636)
(
481,369)
(
2,314,218)
45,724
(
444,690)
(
195,372)
(
14,657,244)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
Table
5­
8.
Aggregate
Costs
of
Option
B
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
5­
16
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
5­
17
Table
5­
9.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
Option
A1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
87
0
37
0
55
0
5
2
186
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
7
0
0
0
16
8
31
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
4
0
2
0
22
0
2
1
31
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
3
10
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
1
0
19
0
2
1
25
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
93
0
48
0
96
0
36
18
291
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
5­
18
Table
5­
10.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
Option
B1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
87
0
37
5
55
26
5
2
217
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
15
0
7
1
184
0
16
8
231
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
4
0
2
0
22
10
2
1
41
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
1
0
73
0
6
3
84
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
1
0
19
9
2
1
34
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
0
0
65
0
5
3
74
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
110
0
48
6
418
45
36
18
681
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
were
calculated
using
a
7
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
28Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995.
Public
Law
104 
4 
Mar.
22,
1995
29
Estimated
as
0.25
hours
of
EH&
S
staff
at
$
65.15
per
hour
and
0.5
hours
of
clerical
staff
at
24.86
per
hour.

5­
19
5.5
Impacts
on
State
Governments
The
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)
requires
that
federal
agencies
assess
the
effects
of
federal
regulations
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
In
particular,
UMRA
requires
that
agencies
prepare
a
written
statement
to
accompany
any
rulemaking
that
"
includes
any
federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
the
expenditure
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100,000,000
or
more
(
annually
adjusted
for
inflation)
in
any
one
year"
(
Section
202(
a)).
28
Given
the
modest
impacts
presented
below,
the
proposed
rule
will
not
trigger
further
UMRA
requirements,
even
with
full
adoption.

Cost
burdens
for
States
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following
areas:

°
Review
of
notifications
­
Opt
in/
out
letters
and/
or
subsequent
notification
EPA
Form
8700­
12
for
later
generator
status
changes
will
be
submitted
and
must
be
reviewed
and
input
by
the
state
agency.
°
Regulation
Review
­
State
agencies
must
review,
research
and
train
their
inspectors
and
responsible
employees
regarding
the
proposed
changes.
°
Inspector
Costs
­
Includes
additional
review
of
colleges
and
universities
because
of
the
proposed
regulations
regarding
the
laboratory
management
plan.
Specifically,
under
alternative
Option
A,
where
the
agency
proposes
to
make
the
LMP
an
enforceable
document,
states
inspectors
would
be
required
to
review
LMPs
during
inspections
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
regulation.

The
costs
for
the
state
agency
burden
is
estimated
using
the
Supporting
Statement
for
EPA
Information
Collection
Request
Number
261.14
"
Notification
of
Regulated
Waste
Activity"
­
September
1,
2002.
A
state
agency
review
of
EPA
Form
8700­
12
or
by
a
letter
presenting
the
pertinent
information
is
estimated
to
have
a
labor
burden
of
0.25
hours
of
technical
staff.
To
input
the
notification
information
into
a
database
it
is
estimated
to
have
a
labor
burden
of
0.5
hours
of
clerical
staff.
Using
the
labor
rates
presented
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
cost
per
notification
review
and
input
is
$
28.51
(
2004$).
29
Assuming
the
entire
population
post­
secondary
institutions
eligible
actually
opt
into
the
proposed
rulemaking
(
1,811
colleges
and
universities),
the
review
and
input
of
the
subsequent
notification
total
costs
is
$
52,012.
Given
that
Alaska,
Iowa
and
Puerto
Rico
do
not
have
jurisdiction
over
the
RCRA
program,
costs
for
information
processing
for
the
total
of
17
institutions
in
these
jurisdictions
would
fall
on
the
U.
S.
government,
reducing
30
Some
institutions
may
be
under
the
jurisdiction
of
Indian
Tribes,
and
consequently
some
percentage
of
the
estimated
costs
may
fall
to
Tribal
Governments.
However
it
is
not
known
how
many,
if
any,
of
the
potentially
affected
institutions
are
under
Tribal
authority.

31http://
www.
opm.
gov/
oca/
05tables/
index.
asp
32
$
37.97
per
hour
X
2
hours
X
5
inspectors
X
28
adopting
jurisdictions
(
adopting
jurisdictions
include
27
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia.

33
$
37.97
per
hour
X
1.5
hours
X
78
inspections
5­
20
the
actual
cost
incurred
by
states
to
only
$
51,524.30
However,
given
that
not
all
states
will
adopt
the
proposed
regulation
(
see
Table
3­
10)
a
total
cost
of
$
23,917
is
estimated
for
notification
review
costs.
This
cost
would
only
be
incurred
under
the
proposed
regulatory
option.
Costs
under
Option
A
are
slightly
lower,
at
$
23,730.
There
are
no
notification
requirements
under
Option
B.

The
costs
for
training
of
RCRA
inspectors
and
the
additional
time
of
a
RCRA
inspection
was
estimated
for
states
that
are
assumed
to
adopt
the
proposed
regulation.
The
labor
rate
used
for
the
RCRA
inspector
is
estimated
using
a
general
schedule
grade
GS­
11,
step
5.
The
hourly
rates
are
estimated
using
the
January
2005
published
salary
table
from
the
US
Government
Office
of
Personnel
Management
web­
page.
31
The
hourly
rate
is
estimated
as
$
24.57
(
unloaded)
and
$
37.97
(
loaded).
Each
inspector
is
estimated
to
review
the
proposed
regulation
and
review
the
new
requirements
for
inspections
in
two
hours.
Five
inspectors
are
assumed
to
cover
the
college
and
universities
per
state.
A
total
cost
of
$
10,632
is
estimated
for
the
initial
review
and
training
of
RCRA
inspectors.
32
Subsequently,
as
inspectors
are
replaced
through
retirement,
promotion,
etc.,
additional
inspectors
will
need
training.
This
is
assumed
to
be
one
inspector
per­
year
perstate
for
a
total
annual
cost
of
$
2,126.

The
additional
time
necessary
during
a
RCRA
inspection
is
estimated
as
1.5
hours
per
college
or
university.
The
additional
inspection
time
includes
review
of
the
LMP,
labeling
logs,
and
cleanout
information.
Each
LQG
college
or
university
is
assumed
to
have
a
RCRA
inspection
once
every
eight
years;
a
SQG
college
or
university
once
every
twelve
years.
For
purposes
of
estimating
state
burden
costs,
22
LQGs
and
56
SQGs
are
assumed
to
be
inspected
every
year.
A
total
cost
of
$
4,442
annually
is
estimated
for
the
inspection
of
colleges
and
universities.
33
This
cost
will
only
be
incurred
under
the
proposed
regulatory
option,
and
alternative
Option
A.

A
summary
of
estimated
state
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
and
alternative
options
considered
by
the
agency
is
presented
in
Table
5­
11.
Because
of
the
modest
impacts,
the
proposed
rule
will
not
trigger
further
UMRA
requirements,
even
with
full
adoption.
5­
21
Table
5­
11.
Summary
of
Estimated
State
Agency
Costs
Associated
With
the
Laboratory
Management
Rule
Cost
Item
Proposed
Regulatory
Option
Alternative
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Alternative
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

Review
of
Notifications
1/
$
23,917
$
23,730
NR
Initial
Inspector
Training
Costs
2/
$
10,632
$
10,632
$
10,632
Annual
Inspector
Training
Costs
3/
$
2,126
$
2,126
$
2,126
LMP
Review
4/
NR
$
4,442
NR
NR­
Not
required
1/
Costs
are
for
initial
notification
and
will
be
incurred
at
adoption;
estimate
represents
a
onetime
only
cost.
2/
Cost
estimates
are
for
the
initial
training
of
inspectors;
estimate
represents
a
one­
time­
only
cost.
3/
Annual
inspector
training
costs,
incurred
as
new
inspectors
are
hired.
4/
Incremental
inspection
costs
associated
with
making
the
LMP
an
enforceable
document.
6­
1
6.0
QUALITATIVE
BENEFITS
Possible
human
health
and
environmental
benefits
from
the
proposed
rule
are
discussed
qualitatively
in
this
chapter.
The
proposed
rule
is
intended
to
clarify
and
streamline
laboratory
waste
management
requirements,
and
provide
incentives
to
eliminate
inventories
of
unwanted
chemicals
that
may
be
stored
in
laboratories.
The
proposed
rule
also
requires
more
formalized
laboratory
waste
management
practices
with
the
development
of
Laboratory
Management
Plans
(
LMPs),
which
may
reduce
the
incidence
of
accidental
releases
of
hazardous
materials.

The
proposed
rule
is
intended
to
reduce
the
burden
for
colleges
and
universities
in
complying
with
standards
developed
for
the
industrial
laboratories
and
industrial
production
facilities.
The
benefits
derived
from
this
proposal
are
a
direct
result
of
allowing
college
and
university
laboratories
to
tailor
waste
management
to
their
unique
needs
and
circumstances.
Under
RCRA
regulations,
it
can
be
difficult
for
universities
to
comply
with
regulations
developed
for
industrial
laboratories
because
of
the
variability
and
volume
of
their
wastestreams.
Under
the
proposed
guidelines,
college
and
university
laboratories
will
develop
a
specialized
Laboratory
Management
Plan
that
is
appropriately
tailored
to
the
types
of
wasted
generated,
the
size
and
number
of
wastestreams
and
the
skill­
level
of
the
primary
waste
generators.
A
personalized
system
of
waste
management
would
handle
laboratory
waste
more
effectively
because
it
would
be
targeted
to
the
needs
of
the
college
or
university.
The
goal
is
to
promote
environmental
protection
and
public
health
through
safer
management
of
college
and
university
laboratory
waste.
The
proposed
regulations
are
as
protective
as
existing
standards
and
meet
the
goals
of
RCRA.

The
proposed
regulations
have
numerous
benefits.
There
are
many
economic
gains
through
efficient
waste
management
practices,
waste
minimization
and
waste
coordination
activities.
The
structured
nature
of
the
LMP
will
result
in
safer
laboratory
practices
and
increased
awareness
of
waste
management.
This
would
minimize
exposure
of
hazardous
substances
to
humans
and
the
environment.
Ultimately,
the
proposed
changes
would
improve
the
way
universities
coordinate
and
integrate
waste
management
activities
and
enhance
awareness
about
proper
handling
techniques.

In
addition
to
the
LPM,
the
proposed
rule
specifies
training
requirements
for
students,
laboratory
workers,
individuals
involved
in
the
on­
site
transportation
of
potentially
hazardous
wastes
and
individuals
making
the
hazardous
waste
determination.
The
requirements
for
training
are
expected
to
reduce
the
potential
for
release
of
hazardous
materials.
For
example,
waste
generated
through
experimentation
may
react
adversely
if
incorrectly
stored
or
managed;
training
requirements
for
laboratory
workers
will
ensure
workers
are
knowledgeable
in
the
storage
and
compatibility
of
waste
materials,
as
well
as
reagents.

The
Agency
believes
that
the
proposed
rule
will
also
encourage
more
frequent
clean­
outs
of
unwanted
and
unused
reagents
from
laboratories.
Over
time,
storage
of
unused
material
stored
in
6­
2
the
laboratory
can
suffer
from
deteriorating
labels
and
containers,
increasing
the
chances
that
a
long­
stored
reagent
will
be
accidently
or
mistakenly
released
into
the
environment.
More
frequent
clean­
outs
of
laboratories
will
help
to
reduce
this
potential.
34
Sustainable
refers
to
a
principle
which
says
that
any
development
must
not
compromise
the
welfare
of
future
generations
for
the
benefit
of
present
generations.
This
principle
is
designed
to
support
intergenerational
equity
(
i.
e.,
fairness
between
generations).

7­
3
7.0
OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE
REQUIREMENTS
This
section
describes
the
Agency's
response
to
other
rulemaking
requirements
established
by
statute
and
executive
order,
within
the
context
of
the
proposed
laboratory
waste
listing.
A
Regulatory
Flexibility
Screening
Analysis
(
RFSA)
as
required
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA)
is
presented
in
Appendix
C.

7.1
Environmental
Justice
The
Agency
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
justice
concerns
and
is
assuming
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
residents
of
the
United
States.
The
Agency's
goals
are
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
or
income
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
impacts
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities,
and
that
all
people
live
in
clean
and
sustainable34
communities.
In
response
to
Executive
Order
12898
and
to
concerns
voiced
by
many
groups
outside
the
Agency,
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
formed
an
Environmental
Justice
Task
Force
to
analyze
the
array
of
environmental
justice
issues
specific
to
waste
programs
and
to
develop
an
overall
strategy
to
identify
and
address
these
issues
(
OSWER
Directive
No.
9200.3­
17).

It
is
not
certain
whether
the
management
issues
addressed
by
the
proposed
rule
could
disproportionately
affect
minority
or
low
income
communities,
due
to
the
location
of
some
laboratory
operations.
These
operations
are
distributed
throughout
the
country
and
many
are
located
within
highly
populated
areas.
While
the
proposed
rule
changes
and
clarifies
requirements
for
laboratories,
this
rule
is
intended
to
decrease
risks
from
laboratory
operations.
It
is,
therefore,
not
expected
to
result
in
any
disproportionately
negative
impacts
on
minority
or
low
income
communities
relative
to
affluent
or
non­
minority
communities.
Similarly,
because
the
rulemaking
is
protective,
it
is
intended
to
result
in
lower
risk
to
minority
or
low­
income
workers
handling
the
wastes
in
question
relative
to
higher­
wage
or
non­
minority
workers.

7.2
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Under
Section
202
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995,
signed
into
law
on
March
22,
1995,
the
Agency
must
prepare
a
statement
to
accompany
any
rule
for
which
the
estimated
costs
to
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
will
be
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Under
Section
205,
the
Agency
must
select
the
most
cost­
effective
and
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objective
of
the
rule
and
is
consistent
with
statutory
35
An
economically
significant
rule
is
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866
as
any
rulemaking
that
has
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more,
or
would
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health,
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities.

7­
4
requirements.
Section
203
requires
EPA
to
establish
a
plan
for
informing
and
advising
any
small
governments
that
may
be
significantly
affected
by
the
rule.

An
analysis
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
was
conducted
and
it
was
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
include
a
federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$
100
million
or
more
to
either
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
in
the
aggregate.
The
private
sector
also
is
not
expected
to
incur
costs
exceeding
$
100
million
per
year
associated
with
this
action.

7.3
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
On
April
21,
1997,
the
President
signed
Executive
Order
13045
entitled,
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks."
The
Executive
Order
requires
all
economically
significant
rules35
that
concern
an
environmental
health
risk
or
safety
risk
that
may
disproportionately
affect
children
to
comply
with
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
Because
the
Agency
does
not
consider
the
proposed
rulemaking
to
be
economically
significant,
it
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045.
Furthermore,
the
proposed
rulemaking
is
intended
to
reduce
potential
releases
of
hazardous
wastes
to
the
environment.
Depending
on
current
and
future
exposure
patterns,
any
risks
to
children
associated
with
such
releases
would
also
decrease.
The
management
practices
proposed
in
this
rule,
therefore,
are
intended
to
reduce
the
potential
for
unacceptable
risks
to
children
potentially
exposed
to
the
constituents
of
concern.

7.4
Regulatory
Takings
The
Agency
has
complied
with
Executive
Order
12630,
entitled
"
Governmental
Actions
and
Interference
with
Constitutionally
Protected
Property
Rights"
(
53
FR
8859,
March
15,
1988),
by
examining
the
takings
implications
of
this
rule
in
accordance
with
the
Attorney
General's
Supplemental
Guidelines
for
the
Evaluation
of
Risk
and
Avoidance
of
Unanticipated
Takings
issued
under
the
Executive
Order.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
this
rule
will
not
effect
a
taking
of
private
property
or
otherwise
have
taking
implications
under
Executive
Order
12630.

7.5
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
state
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
are
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
7­
5
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."

Under
Section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
state
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
state
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
state
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
state
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.

Section
4
of
the
Executive
Order
contains
additional
requirements
for
rules
that
preempt
state
or
local
law,
even
if
those
rules
do
not
have
federalism
implications
(
i.
e.,
the
rules
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government).
Those
requirements
include
providing
all
affected
state
and
local
officials
notice,
and
an
opportunity
for
appropriate
participation
in
the
development
of
the
regulation.
If
the
preemption
is
not
based
on
expressed
or
implied
statutory
authority,
EPA
also
must
consult,
to
the
extent
practicable,
with
appropriate
state
and
local
officials
regarding
the
conflict
between
state
law
and
federally
protected
interests
within
the
agency's
area
of
regulatory
responsibility.

This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
rule,
as
proposed,
is
projected
to
result
in
economic
impacts
to
publicly
and
privately
owned
laboratory
facilities.
Marginal
administrative
burden
impacts
may
occur
to
selected
States
and/
or
EPA
Regional
Offices
if
these
entities
experience
increased
administrative
needs,
enforcement
requirements,
or
voluntary
information
requests.
However,
this
rule,
as
proposed,
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
intergovernmental
relationships,
or
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
state
and
local
governments,
we
specifically
solicit
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
state
and
local
officials.

7.6
Tribalism
Executive
Order
13175,
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments,"
was
signed
by
the
President
on
November
6,
2000.
As
of
January
6,
2001,
Executive
Order
13175
7­
6
(
65
FR
67249)
took
effect
and
revoked
Executive
Order
13084.
This
Order
applies
to
regulations
not
specifically
required
by
statute,
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments,
and
that
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
Indian
tribal
governments.
If
any
rule
is
projected
to
result
in
significant
direct
costs
to
Indian
tribal
communities,
EPA
cannot
issue
this
rule
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
costs
incurred
by
the
Indian
tribal
government
or
the
tribe,
or
consults
with
the
appropriate
tribal
government
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.

If
EPA
complies
by
consulting,
we
must
provide
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
with
all
required
information.
We
must
also
summarize,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
or
final
rule,
a
description
of
the
extent
of
our
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
Also,
Executive
Order
13175
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
tribal
governments
to,
"
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities."

Furthermore,
the
proposed
rulemaking
would
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments,
nor
would
it
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
them.
Tribal
communities
are
not
known
to
own
or
operate
any
college
or
university
laboratories,
nor
are
these
communities
disproportionately
located
adjacent
to
or
near
such
colleges
or
universities
with
laboratories.
Finally,
tribal
governments
will
not
be
required
to
assume
any
administrative
or
permitting
responsibilities
associated
with
this
proposed
rule.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
13175
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.
Appendix
A
Impact
Tables
Corresponding
With
the
High
College
and
University
Hazardous
Waste
Generation
Estimate
A­
1
Table
A5­
2.
Estimated
Average
Impact
Per
College
or
University
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
$
3,065
$
3,259
($
5)
($
50,118)
($
250)
$
3,257
($
10,528)
($
12,970)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
$
3,377
$
6,372
$
308
$
1,733
$
2,886
$
3,570
($
5,207)
($
5,569)

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
$
3,065
$
3,259
($
5)
$
0
($
250)
$
3,257
($
10,528)
($
12,970)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
$
3,377
$
0
$
308
$
0
$
2,886
$
3,570
($
5,207)
($
5,569)

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
$
3,065
$
3,259
($
5)
$
0
($
250)
$
3,257
($
10,528)
($
12,970)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
$
3,377
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
2,886
$
3,570
($
5,207)
($
5,569)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
eight
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
A­
2
Table
A5­
3.
Aggregate
Costs
of
Rulemaking
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
Syste
m
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50labs,
>
5studios
Large
511,819
65,181
(
320)
(
451,064
)
(
30,199)
185,633
(
115,811
)
(
64,848)
100,391
(<=
50labs,<=
5studios)
Small
97,937
25,487
4,008
1,733
1,177,353
685,499
(
187,461
)
(
94,669)
1,709,888
2­
yearC/
U
(>
50labs,>
5studios)
Large
21,454
3,259
(
14)
­
(
11,980)
74,904
(
42,113)
(
25,939)
19,571
(<=
50labs,<=
5studios)
Small
3,377
­
308
­
464,593
267,773
(
72,901)
(
38,981)
624,169
Vocational
(>
50labs,>
5studios)
Large
9,194
3,259
(
5)
­
(
10,482)
65,134
(
42,113)
(
25,939)
(
951)

(<=
50labs,<=
5studios)
Small
3,377
­
­
­
415,536
239,211
(
62,487)
(
33,412)
562,225
Totals
647,159
97,186
3,978
(
449,330
)
2,004,821
1,518,154
(
522,887
)
(
283,788
)
3,015,292
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
A­
3
Table
A5­
4.
Estimated
Average
Impact
Per
College
and
University
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
As
a
Percentage
of
Annual
Revenue1
Annual
Revenue
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

Institution
$
million
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Impacts
as
a
Percent
of
Annual
Revenue
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
58.5
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
­
0.09%
0.00%
0.01%
­
0.02%
­
0.02%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
58.5
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
­
0.01%
­
0.01%

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
25.1
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
­
0.04%
­
0.05%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
25.1
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
­
0.02%
­
0.02%

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
0.6
0.51%
0.54%
0.00%
0.00%
­
0.04%
0.54%
­
1.75%
­
2.16%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
0.6
0.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.48%
0.60%
­
0.87%
­
0.93%

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
A­
4
Table
A5­
5.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
the
Proposed
Rule1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs**
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
37
5
55
0
5
2
104
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
8
24
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
2
0
22
0
2
1
27
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
9
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
1
0
19
0
2
1
23
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
0
0
40
5
96
0
36
18
195
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
A­
5
Table
A5­
6.
Aggregate
Expected
Cost
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Total
Costs
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50labs,
>
5studios
Large
0
0
(
166)
(
234,328)
(
13,608)
0
(
52,185)
(
29,220)
(
329,507)

(<=
50labs,
<=
5studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
84,470)
(
42,658)
(
127,128)

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50labs,
>
5studios)
Large
0
0
(
7)
0
(
5,398)
0
(
18,976)
(
11,688)
(
36,070)

(<=
50labs,
<=
5studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
32,849)
(
17,565)
(
50,414)

Vocational
(>
50labs,
>
5studios)
Large
0
0
(
2)
0
(
4,723)
0
(
18,976)
(
11,688)
(
35,390)

(<=
50labs,
<=
5studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
28,157)
(
15,056)
(
43,212)

Totals
0
0
(
176)
(
234,328)
(
23,729)
0
(
235,613)
(
127,875)
(
621,720)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
A­
6
Table
A5­
7.
Estimated
Aggregate
Costs
of
Option
A
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
Syste
m
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50labs,

>
5studios
Large
448,634
4,066,277
(
27,184)
1,736,628
(
583,345)
5,079,984
(
162,665)
(
11,460)
10,546,869
(<=
50labs,<=

5studios)
Small
97,417
25,685
3,774
1,783
920,904
686,665
(
210,089)
(
94,565)
1,431,574
2­
yearC/
U
(>
50labs,>
5st
udios)
Large
18,805
203,314
(
1,149)
0
(
231,410)
2,049,818
(
59,151)
(
4,584)
1,975,644
(<=
50labs,<=

5studios)
Small
3,359
0
290
0
363,396
268,228
(
81,701)
(
38,939)
514,634
Vocational
(>
50labs,>
5st
udios)
Large
8,059
203,314
(
383)
0
(
202,484)
1,782,451
(
59,151)
(
4,584)
1,727,223
(<=
50labs,<=

5studios)
Small
3,359
0
0
0
325,025
239,617
(
70,030)
(
33,376)
464,596
Totals
579,633
4,498,590
(
24,651)
1,738,411
592,087
10,106,764
(
642,786)
(
187,508)
16,660,540
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

Notes:
Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
Option
A
specifies
a
shorter
maximum
accumulation
time
in
the
laboratory
(
3
months
versus
6
months
under
the
base
option).
The
cost
model
assumed
a
Table
A5­
7.
Estimated
Aggregate
Costs
of
Option
A
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
Syste
m
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
A­
7
shorter
accumulation
time
of
only
30
days,
and
accordingly
there
were
no
cost
increases
shown
in
the
model
from
this
change.
To
the
extent
laboratories
accumulate
material
for
longer
than
3
months,
costs
would
be
higher
for
them
under
this
option.

Option
A
specifies
there
may
be
additional
record
keeping
requirements.
No
additional
record
keeping
was
incorporated
into
the
model.
As
the
Agency
receives
comments,
additional
costs
for
recordkeeping
may
be
specified
and
costs
for
Option
A
will
increase.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
A­
8
Table
A5­
8.
Estimated
Aggregate
Cost
Impacts
for
Option
B
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50labs,

>
5studios
Large
(
117,947)
18,196
(
268,065)
(
472,207)
(
993,862)
(
5,012)
(
193,067)
(
64,848)
(
2,096,812)

(<=
50labs,<

=
5studios)
Small
(
972)
12,114
(
40,331)
(
1,610)
(
463,316)
35,267
(
210,089)
(
94,565)
(
763,501)

2­
yearC/
U
(>
50labs,>
5
studios)
Large
(
4,944)
910
(
11,327)
0
(
394,259)
(
2,022)
(
70,206)
(
25,939)
(
507,788)

(<=
50labs,<

=
5studios)
Small
(
34)
0
(
3,102)
0
(
182,828)
13,776
(
81,701)
(
38,939)
(
292,828)

Vocational
(>
50labs,>
5
studios)
Large
(
2,119)
910
(
3,776)
0
(
344,977)
(
1,759)
(
70,206)
(
25,939)
(
447,865)

(<=
50labs,<

=
5studios)
Small
(
34)
0
0
0
(
163,523)
12,307
(
70,030)
(
33,376)
(
254,656)
Table
A5­
8.
Estimated
Aggregate
Cost
Impacts
for
Option
B
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
Assuming
100
Percent
Adoption1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
A­
9
Totals
(
126,048)
32,130
(
326,601)
(
473,816)
(
2,542,765)
52,557
(
695,299)
(
283,606)
(
4,363,449)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
A­
10
Table
A5­
9.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
Option
A1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
37
0
55
0
5
2
99
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
8
24
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
2
0
22
0
2
1
27
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
9
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
1
0
19
0
2
1
23
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
0
0
40
0
96
0
36
18
190
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

In
total
507
colleges
and
universities
are
expected
to
adopt
Option
A,
of
which
four
are
LQGs.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
A­
11
Table
A5­
10.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
Option
B1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
87
0
37
5
55
26
5
2
217
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
15
0
7
1
184
0
16
8
231
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
4
0
2
0
22
10
2
1
41
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
1
0
73
0
6
3
84
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
1
0
19
9
2
1
34
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
0
0
65
0
5
3
74
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
110
0
48
6
418
45
36
18
681
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
Appendix
B
Impact
Tables
Corresponding
With
a
Three
Percent
Discount
Rate
for
Annualizing
Costs
B­
1
Table
B­
1.
Estimated
Average
Impact
Per
College
or
University
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
17,793)
1,989
(
20,863)
(
51,389)
(
1,766)
2,357
(
8,276)
(
10,702)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1,542
5,466
(
1,527)
827
1,918
2,681
(
3,020)
(
3,303)

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
17,793)
1,989
(
20,863)
0
(
1,766)
2,357
(
8,276)
(
10,702)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1,542
0
(
1,527)
0
1,918
2,681
(
3,020)
(
3,303)

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
17,793)
1,989
(
20,863)
0
(
1,766)
2,357
(
8,276)
(
10,702)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1,542
0
0
0
1,918
2,681
(
3,020)
(
3,303)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
eight
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
B­
2
Table
B­
2.
Estimated
Average
Impact
Per
College
and
University
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
As
a
Percentage
of
Annual
Revenue1
Annual
Revenue
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

Institution
$
million
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Impacts
as
a
Percent
of
Annual
Revenue
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
58.5
­
0.03%
0.00%
­
0.04%
­
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
­
0.01%
­
0.02%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
58.5
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
­
0.01%
­
0.01%

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
25.1
­
0.07%
0.01%
­
0.08%
0.00%
­
0.01%
0.01%
­
0.03%
­
0.04%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
25.1
0.01%
0.00%
­
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
­
0.01%
­
0.01%

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
0.6
­
2.97%
0.33%
­
3.48%
0.00%
­
0.29%
0.39%
­
1.38%
­
1.78%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
0.6
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.32%
0.45%
­
0.50%
­
0.55%

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
8
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
B­
3
Table
B­
3.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
the
Proposed
Rule1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
87
0
37
5
55
0
5
2
191
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
7
0
0
0
16
8
31
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
4
0
2
0
22
0
2
1
31
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
3
10
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
1
0
19
0
2
1
25
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
93
0
48
5
96
0
36
18
296
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
8
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
B­
4
Table
B­
4.
Aggregate
Expected
Cost
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs**
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs**
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
1,543,684
)
0
(
769,506)
(
240,267)
(
96,263)
0
(
41,023)
(
24,113)
(
2,714,857
)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
(
10,312)
0
0
0
(
48,992)
(
25,303)
(
84,607)

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
64,705)
0
(
32,514)
0
(
38,187)
0
(
14,918)
(
9,645)
(
159,969)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
(
793)
0
0
0
(
19,052)
(
10,419)
(
30,265)

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
(
27,731)
0
(
10,838)
0
(
33,414)
0
(
14,918)
(
9,645)
(
96,545)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
16,331)
(
8,930)
(
25,261)

Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
(
1,636,120
)
0
(
823,964)
(
240,267)
(
167,86
4)
0
(
155,233)
(
88,055)
(
3,111,504
)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
B­
5
Table
B­
5.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
Option
A1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
87
0
37
0
55
0
5
2
186
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
7
0
0
0
16
8
31
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
4
0
2
0
22
0
2
1
31
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
3
10
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
1
0
19
0
2
1
25
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
93
0
48
0
96
0
36
18
291
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
B­
6
Table
B­
6.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
Option
B1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
87
0
37
5
55
26
5
2
217
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
15
0
7
1
184
0
16
8
231
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
4
0
2
0
22
10
2
1
41
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
1
0
73
0
6
3
84
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
1
0
19
9
2
1
34
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
0
0
65
0
5
3
74
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
110
0
48
6
418
45
36
18
681
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
8.8
tons
and
0.32
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
B­
7
Table
B7.
Estimated
Average
Impact
Per
College
or
University
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2,177
2,371
(
892)
(
51,006)
(
1,137)
2,369
(
10,528)
(
12,970)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
2,489
5,484
(
579)
846
1,998
2,683
(
5,207)
(
5,569)

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2,177
2,371
(
892)
0
(
1,137)
2,369
(
10,528)
(
12,970)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
2,489
0
(
579)
0
1,998
2,683
(
5,207)
(
5,569)

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2,177
2,371
(
892)
0
(
1,137)
2,369
(
10,528)
(
12,970)

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
2,489
0
0
0
1,998
2,683
(
5,207)
(
5,569)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
As
discussed
in
Chapter
4,
a
total
of
30
percent
of
LQGs
and
eight
percent
of
SQGs
are
assumed
to
maintain
a
lower
generator
status
under
the
proposed
rule.
B­
8
Table
B8.
Estimated
Average
Impact
Per
College
and
University
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation
As
a
Percentage
of
Annual
Revenue1
Annual
Revenue
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*

Institution
$
million
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Impacts
as
a
Percent
of
Annual
Revenue
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
58.5
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
­
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
­
0.02%
­
0.02%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
58.5
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
­
0.01%
­
0.01%

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
25.1
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
­
0.04%
­
0.05%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
25.1
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
­
0.02%
­
0.02%

Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
0.6
0.36%
0.40%
­
0.15%
0.00%
­
0.19%
0.39%
­
1.75%
­
2.16%

(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
0.6
0.41%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.33%
0.45%
­
0.87%
­
0.93%

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
B­
9
Table
B9.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
the
Proposed
Rule1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs**
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
37
5
55
0
5
2
104
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
7
0
0
0
16
8
31
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
2
0
22
0
2
1
27
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
3
10
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
1
0
19
0
2
1
23
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
0
0
48
5
96
0
36
18
203
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
B­
10
Table
B10.
Aggregate
Expected
Cost
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
by
Institution
Type,
Laboratory
System
Size,
Generator
Status,
and
CAA
Operation1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Total
Costs
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
w/
CAA
w/
oCA
A
w/
CAA
w/
oCAA
4­
year
C/
U
$/
year
(>
50labs,
>
5studios
Large
0
0
(
32,912)
(
238,478)
(
62,012)
0
(
52,185)
(
29,220)
(
414,806)

(<=
50labs,
<=
5studios)
Small
0
0
(
3,914)
0
0
0
(
84,470)
(
42,658)
(
131,041)

2­
year
C/
U
(>
50labs,
>
5studios)
Large
0
0
(
1,391)
0
(
24,600)
0
(
18,976)
(
11,688)
(
56,655)

(<=
50labs,
<=
5studios)
Small
0
0
(
301)
0
0
0
(
32,849)
(
17,565)
(
50,715)

Vocational
(>
50labs,
>
5studios)
Large
0
0
(
464)
0
(
21,525)
0
(
18,976)
(
11,688)
(
52,653)

(<=
50labs,
<=
5studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
28,157)
(
15,056)
(
43,212)

Totals
0
0
(
38,980)
(
238,478)
(
108,136
)
0
(
235,613)
(
127,875
)
(
749,083)

1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
B­
11
Table
B11.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
Option
A1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
37
0
55
0
5
2
99
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
7
0
0
0
16
8
31
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
2
0
22
0
2
1
27
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
3
10
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
1
0
19
0
2
1
23
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
0
0
48
0
96
0
36
18
198
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

In
total
507
colleges
and
universities
are
expected
to
adopt
Option
A,
of
which
four
are
LQGs.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
B­
12
Table
B12.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
Expected
to
Adopt
Option
B1
System
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
Institution
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
87
0
37
5
55
26
5
2
217
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
15
0
7
1
184
0
16
8
231
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
4
0
2
0
22
10
2
1
41
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
1
0
73
0
6
3
84
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
1
0
19
9
2
1
34
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Small
1
0
0
0
65
0
5
3
74
Total
Facilities
Expected
to
Adopt
110
0
48
6
418
45
36
18
681
1/
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
presented
in
Table
3­
8.
Average
annual
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generated
by
LQGs
and
SQGs
are
15.3
tons
and
0.62
tons,
respectively.
Results
estimated
using
a
3
percent
real
discount
rate.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
college
or
university
is
allowed
to
exclude
the
waste
generated
from
one
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
year
in
determining
the
college
or
university's
generation
status.
This
may
allow
some
colleges
and
universities
to
reduce
their
reported
generator
status
from
large
quantity
generator
(
LQG)
to
small
quantity
generator
(
SQG)
and
SQG
to
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG).
36
13­
CFR­
121.
Jan
2005.
Small
Business
Size
Regulations.
http://
www.
sba.
gov/
library/
cfrs/
13cfr121.
pdf.
The
size
criteria
have
since
been
updated
by
SBA
(
13­
CFR­
121
and
123.
December
6,
2005).
However
the
screening
analysis
completed
in
this
section
is
based
on
the
January
2005
size
criteria.
For
the
affected
NAICS
industries,
the
small
size
threshold
was
increased
from
$
6.0
(
Jan.
2005)
to
$
6.5
(
Dec.
2005)
million
in
revenue
per
year;
the
Agency
believes
that
this
modest
change
will
not
materially
affect
the
screening
analysis
results.

C­
1
Appendix
C
Small
Business
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
SMALL
BUSINESS
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
Standards
Applicable
to
Generators
of
Hazardous
Waste;
Subpart
K­
Standards
Applicable
to
Academic
Laboratories
The
Agency
is
required
to
make
an
initial
determination
if
any
regulatory
action
may
have
a
"
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities."
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
The
Agency
generally
conducts
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Screening
Analysis
(
RFSA)
to
make
this
determination.
The
purpose
of
this
chapter
is
to
present
the
methodology
and
findings
for
the
RFSA
conducted
in
support
of
the
proposed
Standards
Applicable
to
Generators
of
Hazardous
Waste;
Subpart
KStandards
Applicable
to
Academic
Laboratories.
This
analysis
was
conducted
per
the
requirements
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA).

A
series
of
questions
regarding
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
standards
on
small
college
and
university
institutions
must
be
answered
in
development
of
this
analysis.
These
include:

1.
Is
the
rule
subject
to
SBREFA
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking
requirements?
2.
What
types
of
entities
will
be
subject
to
the
rule?
3.
What
types
of
small
entities
will
be
subject
to
the
rule,
if
any?
4.
Will
small
entities
be
adversely
affected
by
the
rule?
5.
Will
the
rule
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities?

C.
1
Effects
on
Small
Business
This
section
briefly
outlines
the
types
of
entities
affected.
It
also
presents
summary
impacts
data
for
all
post­
secondary
institutions,
and
characterizes
small
entities
according
to
size
criteria
set
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
36.
The
number
of
small
entities
potentially
affected
are
estimated.
We
also
present
estimated
impacts
under
the
alternative
scenarios
and
options.
37
As
previously
noted,
the
size
criteria
have
recently
been
updated
by
SBA
(
13­
CFR­
121
and
123.
December
6,
2005).
However
the
screening
analysis
completed
in
this
section
is
based
on
the
January
2005
size
criteria.
The
modest
changes
made
by
SBA
are
not
expected
to
significantly
change
the
results
of
the
analysis.

C­
2
The
post­
secondary
industries
potentially
affected
by
the
proposed
rulemaking,
and
their
corresponding
small
business
size
standards
are
presented
in
Table
C­
1.
The
small
business
size
standard
for
all
colleges
and
universities
is
$
6.0
million
in
revenue
per
year,
meaning
that
all
colleges
and
universities
with
less
than
$
6.0
million
in
revenue
per
year
are
considered
small.
37
Table
C­
1.
Small
Business
Size
Standards
for
Industries
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rulemaking
Facility
Type
NAICS
Small
Business
Size
Standards
($
million/
yr)

Colleges,
Universities,
and
Professional
Schools
61131
$
6.0
Junior
Colleges
and
Technical
Institutes
61121
$
6.0
Other
Technical
and
Trade
Schools
611519
$
6.0
Fine
Art
Schools
61161
$
6.0
All
other
miscellaneous
schools
and
instruction
611699
$
6.0
Source:
13­
CFR­
121.
Jan
2005.
Small
Business
Size
Regulations.
http://
www.
sba.
gov/
library/
cfrs/
13cfr121.
pdf.
As
previously
noted,
the
size
criteria
have
since
been
updated
by
SBA
(
13­
CFR­
121
and
123.
December
6,
2005),
with
the
small
business
threshold
for
the
NAICS
codes
presented
above
being
increased
to
$
6.5
million
per
year.
However
the
screening
analysis
completed
in
this
section
is
based
on
the
January
2005
size
criteria.

Any
business,
small
or
large,
has
the
option
of
choosing
to
be
subject
to
the
proposed
regulation.
Any
business
that
chooses
to
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
would
have
to
abide
by
the
requirements
of
the
rule.
Accordingly,
the
business
would
be
required
to
meet
specific
requirements
of
the
rule,
including
hazardous
waste
identification
procedures,
ensuring
laboratory
personnel
have
requisite
training
and
other
requirements,
which
are
identified
in
Table
C­
2.
C­
3
Table
C­
2.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

HW
determination
HW
determination
must
be
made
at
the
point
of
generation
HW
determination
done:

­
before
removed
from
laboratory,
or
­
within
4
days
of
arriving
at
on­
site
central
accumulation
area
or
on­
site
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
facility
Same
as
proposed
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
maximum
accumulation
time
in
laboratory
none
(
Waste
can
be
accumulated
indefinitely
unless
55
gallons
is
exceeded)
6
months
shorter
time
period
(
3
months)
longer
time
period
(
1
year)

maximum
accumulation
volume
55
gallons
hazardous
waste
1
quart
of
acute
hazardous
waste
55
gallons
of
unwanted
material
1
qt
reactive
acutely
hazardous
unwanted
material
("
unwanted
material"
more
broad
than
"
hazardous
waste".
But
"
reactive
acutely
hazardous
unwanted
material"
is
much
narrower
than
"
acute
hazardous
waste"

(
only
7
chemicals))
Same
as
proposed
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
maximum
number
of
days
that
laboratory
can
exceed
maximum
volume
3
days,
excess
of
55
gallons
must
be
removed
10
days,
all
55
gallons
(
or
1
qt
reactive
acutely
hazardous
unwanted
material)

must
be
removed
shorter
time
period
(
7
days)
longer
time
period
(
14
days)
Table
C­
2.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

C­
4
container
labeling
"
hazardous
waste"
or
"
other
words
that
identify
the
contents
of
the
container"
Cautionary
compliance
label 
label
must
have
the
words
unwanted
material.

Additionally,
sufficient
information
to
alert
emergency
response
workers
to
the
contents
or
hazards.
This
must
be
affixed
to
or
physically
accompany
the
container.

Other
information
"
associated"
with
the
container
 
information
"
sufficient
to
allow
a
RCRA
trained
person
to
make
hazardous
waste
determination"
does
not
have
to
be
physically
on
the
container,

but
must
be
associated
with
the
container.

Laboratories
may
use
a
"
bar
code"
or
other
system
of
their
choosing.
Certain
dates
would
be
required
­
date
waste
begins
accumulating
in
container,
and,
if
necessary,
date
55
gallons
or
1
quart
exceeded.
prescriptive
labeling
requirements
spelled
out
in
the
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
Table
C­
2.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

C­
5
training
of
laboratory
personnel
and
instruction
for
students
none
Performance­
based
standards:

°
training
for
laboratory
workers
commensurate
with
duties
°
instruction
for
students
in
classroom
setting
°
training
and
instruction
commensurate
with
duties
as
in
proposal.

°
Requires
training
for
students
in:

labeling,
container
mgmt.,
and
emergency
resp.

°
training
described
in
LMP
Same
as
proposed
rule
container
management
°
containers
must
be
in
good
condition
°
hazardous
waste
must
be
compatible
with
container
°
containers
must
be
kept
closed
except
when
adding
or
removing
waste
Performance­
based
standards:

containers
must
be
properly
managed
to
assure
safe
storage
of
unwanted
materials
to
prevent
spills,
leaks,
emissions
to
the
air
or
adverse
chemical
reactions
or
other
dangerous
situations
which
may
result
in
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Unwanted
materials
must
be
compatible
with
their
containers,
the
containers
must
be
kept
in
good
condition,
and
damaged
containers
must
be
replaced.
prescriptive
requirements
in
the
rule:
i.
e.
container
must
be
closed,
in
good
condition,

compatible
with
waste,
wastes
must
not
be
stored
near
incompatible
wastes
Same
as
proposed
rule
Table
C­
2.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

C­
6
laboratory
management
plan
none
required
to
discuss
implementation
of
performance­
based
standards.
Contents
of
plan
not
enforced
against.
contents
of
laboratory
management
plan
enforced
against
no
laboratory
management
plan
record­
keeping
none
°
strives
to
minimize
additional
recordkeeping
­
one­
time
notification
­
labels
­
training
records
for
LQGs
only
­
laboratory
clean­
out
records
°
Potential
additional
records
identified
by
commenters
Same
as
proposed
rule
laboratory
clean­
outs
none
laboratory
clean­
outs
encouraged,
but
not
mandatory
­
1
laboratory
clean­
out
per
laboratory
per
12
months:

°
hazardous
waste
generated
during
clean­
out
does
not
count
towards
generator
status
°
clean­
out
may
last
30
days
°
excess
of
55
gallons
(
or
1
quart)
may
accumulate
for
duration
of
clean­
out
Same
as
proposed
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
Table
C­
2.
Comparison
of
Current
and
Proposed
Regulations
for
Laboratories
Management
Item
Current
Regulations
262.34
(
c)
Proposed
Regulations
Subpart
K
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

C­
7
notification
no
notification
requirement
­
notification
of
RA
or
state
director
required
to
be
subject
to
Subpart
K
­
notification
required,
if
college
or
university
chooses
to
return
to
existing
regulations
Subsequent
site
ID
form
(
EPA
Form
8700­
12)
no
notification
for
opt­
in
or
opt
out
optional
rule
current
regulations
not
optional
in
states
that
adopt
the
rule,
individual
colleges/
universities
can
either
choose
this
rule,
or
remain
regulated
under
current
regulations
Same
as
proposed
rule
Same
as
proposed
rule
C­
8
C.
2
Type
and
Number
of
Entities
Affected
The
proposed
listing
could
potentially
affect
an
estimated
1,811
post­
secondary
institutions.
While
adoption
of
the
rule
is
optional,
Table
C­
3
presents
the
entire
population
of
institutions
which
could
be
affected,
indicating
the
number
of
colleges
and
universities
estimated
to
be
small
entities.
As
shown,
an
estimated
697
colleges
and
universities
are
classified
as
small
entities.

Table
C­
3.
Estimated
Number
of
Small
and
Large
Entities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
Generator
Status
4­
year
School
(
NAICS
61131)
2/
2­
year
School
(
NAICS
61121)
3/
Other
Vocational
(
NAICS
611519,
61161,
611699)
4/

Total
LQGs
1/
314
13
7
Small
Entity
LQGs
77
5
6
Large
Entity
LQGs
237
8
1
Total
SQGs
1/
846
335
297
Small
Entity
SQGs
207
135
267
Large
Entity
SQGs
639
200
30
1/
Estimated
based
on
data
from
the
2001
Biennial
Reporting
System.
2/
USDC
Census
data
from
1997
indicate
that
24.5
percent
of
entities
classified
in
NAICS
61131
have
net
revenue
of
$
6.0
million
or
less,
making
them
small
entities.
The
remaining
75.5
percent
are
large.
3/
USDC
Census
data
from
1997
indicate
that
40.4
percent
of
entities
classified
in
NAICS
61121
have
net
revenue
of
$
6.0
million
or
less,
making
them
small
entities.
The
remaining
59.6
percent
are
large.
4/
For
other
vocational
schools,
Census
data
are
not
available
which
provide
size
distributions.
However
average
revenues
have
been
estimated
at
less
than
$
600,000
per
year,
indicating
that
a
large
portion
of
the
facilities
are
small
entities.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis
it
is
assumed
that
90
percent
of
these
facilities
are
small
entities.

Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
C.
3
Economic
Effect
on
Small
Entities
We
estimate
that,
under
the
proposed
regulatory
option,
a
total
of
195
to
296
colleges
and
universities
will
benefit
from
reduced
costs,
based
on
our
college
and
university
models,
ranging
38
The
Agency
has
assumed
that
only
states
with
historically
high
rates
of
RCRA
rule
change
adoptions
(
equal
to
or
greater
than
85
percent),
will
codify
the
rule,
allowing
colleges
and
universities
in
those
states
to
adopt
the
rule.
Furthermore,
only
colleges
and
universities
which
experience
a
reduction
in
costs
are
projected
to
adopt
the
proposed
rule.
After
applying
these
limitations,
195
to
296
colleges
and
universities
are
expected
to
adopt
the
rule.

C­
9
from
0.01
percent
to
2.2
percent.
38
Vocational
schools,
which
are
predominantly
small
experience
the
largest
cost
savings.
Similar
savings
rates
are
in
evidence
for
the
alternative
options.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
universe
of
colleges
and
universities
potentially
affected
includes
approximately
39
percent
small
entities.
Of
the
195
to
296
colleges
and
universities
benefitting
from
the
rule
(
proposed
rule),
from
34
to
37
percent
or
73
to
102
colleges
and
universities
are
estimated
to
be
small
entities.
The
number
of
small
and
large
entities
expected
to
adopt
the
rule
is
presented
in
Table
C­
4a
and
C­
4b.

C.
4
Potential
for
Significant
Impacts
on
Small
Entities
Under
the
Agency's
proposed
regulatory
option,
no
small
colleges
and
universities
will
adopt
the
proposed
regulation
unless
they
expect
to
experience
a
net
decrease
in
costs
associated
with
managing
their
laboratory
waste.
Based
on
these
findings,
we
do
not
believe
that
this
rule,
as
proposed,
will
result
in
significant
economic
impacts
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
college
and
university
institutions.
The
same
conclusion
can
be
made
for
the
alternative
regulatory
options,
Option
A
and
Option
B.
C­
10
Table
C­
4a.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
by
Entity
Size
Expected
to
Adopt
the
Proposed
Rule
for
Low
Waste
Generation
Estimate*

Institution/
System
Size
Entity
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
66
0
42
0
28
4
4
2
144
Small
21
0
13
0
9
1
1
0
47
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Large
0
0
0
0
5
0
12
6
23
Small
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
2
8
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
2
0
13
0
1
0
1
1
18
Small
2
0
9
0
1
0
1
0
13
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Large
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
2
6
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
4
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
Small
2
0
17
0
1
0
2
1
23
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Large
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
7
Totals
Large
68
0
57
0
35
4
22
11
195
Totals
Small
25
0
39
0
13
1
15
7
102
Grand
Total
All
93
0
96
0
48
5
37
18
296
Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
lower
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
of
8.8
tons
for
LQGs
and
0.32
tons
for
SQGs.
C­
11
Table
C­
4b.
Number
of
Model
Colleges
and
Universities
in
Each
Impact
Category
by
Entity
Size
Expected
to
Adopt
the
Proposed
Rule
for
High
Waste
Generation
Estimate*

Institution/
System
Size
Entity
Size
LQGs
LQGs
to
SQGs*
SQGs
SQGs
to
CESQGs*
Totals
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
w/
CAA
w/
o
CAA
4­
year
C/
U
Number
of
Colleges
and
Universities
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
42
0
28
4
4
2
79
Small
0
0
13
0
9
1
1
0
25
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Large
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
6
18
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
6
2­
year
C/
U
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
13
0
1
0
1
1
16
Small
0
0
9
0
1
0
1
0
11
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Large
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
5
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
4
Vocational
(>
50
labs,
>
5
studios)
Large
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
Small
0
0
17
0
1
0
2
1
21
(<=
50
labs,
<=
5
studios)
Large
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Small
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
7
Totals
Large
0
0
57
0
29
4
22
11
121
Totals
Small
0
0
39
0
11
1
15
7
73
Grand
Total
All
0
0
96
0
40
5
37
18
195
Numbers
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding
*
Estimates
presented
correspond
with
the
higher
laboratory
hazardous
waste
quantity
estimate
of
15.3
tons
for
LQGs
and
0.62
tons
for
SQGs.