Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012-0066
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-05-23T04:00Z

1
The
Agency
has
not
conducted
more
recent
data
pulls
from
the
2003
Biennial
Report.
However
we
believe
that
the
data
from
the
1999
report
are
likely
representative
of
current
hazardous
waste
generation
patterns
at
non­
academic
laboratories.
Qualitative
discussion
of
the
impact
of
expanding
the
rule
to
include
non­
academic
laboratories
The
proposed
alternative
regulations
were
envisioned
to
apply
to
unwanted
materials
generated
in
laboratories
at
colleges
and
universities
that
choose
to
be
subject
to
these
proposed
regulations.
Hazardous
wastes
generated
in
laboratories
located
in
non­
colleges
and
universities
would
not
be
eligible,
but
rather
would
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
existing
hazardous
waste
regulations.

EPA
believes
that
laboratories
located
in
colleges
and
universities
have
unique
waste
generation
patterns.
However,
in
comments
submitted
in
response
to
EPA's
public
meeting
in
2003,
several
commenters
indicated
that
laboratories
in
government
and
industry
share
similar
processes,
use
of
chemicals,
and
waste
generation
patterns.
Specifically,
commenters
state
that,
like
laboratories
at
colleges
and
universities,
many
industry,
utility,
and
government
laboratories
generate
relatively
small
amounts
of
a
large
variety
of
wastes.

If
the
alternative
regulation
was
expanded
to
apply
to
non­
academic
institutions,
we
would
envision
that
the
definition
of
laboratory
may
be
"
an
area
where
relatively
small
quantities
and
a
wide
variety
of
chemicals
and
other
substances
are
used
on
a
non­
production
basis
for
teaching
or
research
purposes
and
are
stored
and
used
in
containers
that
are
easily
manipulated
by
one
person.
An
area
where
the
same
hazardous
wastes
are
routinely
generated,
such
as
photo
processing,
is
not
a
laboratory."

This
definition
would
serve
to
limit
the
expanded
scope,
effectively
excluding
those
facilities
where
fewer
chemicals
are
used
in
larger
volumes,
and
where
the
same
types
of
hazardous
wastes
are
generated
routinely.
However
it
would
still
expand
the
number
of
facilities
eligible
for
the
alternative
regulations
considerably.
While
the
Agency
does
not
have
data
on
the
number
of
facilities
that
may
be
included
under
this
definition,
we
anticipate
that
several
thousand
additional
facilities
would
potentially
be
eligible
for
this
alternative
approach.
A
summary
of
the
number
of
establishments
in
key
industries
which
are
known
to
generate
laboratory
wastes
is
presented
in
Table
1.
These
facilities
were
identified
because
they
generated
hazardous
waste
from
source
code
A94
(
laboratory
wastes)
as
reported
in
the
1999
Biennial
Report.
1
The
number
of
facilities
identified
is
likely
an
underestimate
of
the
actual
number
of
facilities
generating
laboratory
waste,
since
facilities
reporting
hazardous
waste
generation
data
in
BRS
do
not
consistently
use
source
codes.
However
we
believe
the
estimates
represent
a
reasonable
base
number
of
facilities
which
would
be
eligible
under
an
expanded
definition
of
laboratories.
2
Assessment
of
Potential
Costs,
Benefits
and
Other
Impacts
For
the
Proposed
Revised
Standards
Applicable
to
Generators
of
Hazardous
Waste;
Subpart
K
­
Academic
Laboratories,
December
3,
2005.
Section
3.4.1,
Table
3­
8.
Table
1.
Number
of
Establishments
and
Laboratory
Hazardous
Waste
Generation
by
Key
Non­
Academic
Industries
With
Laboratories
Industry
Number
of
Establishments
Hazardous
Waste
Quantities
(
tons)
Average
Lab
Haz.
Waste
per
Facility
Semiconductors
and
Related
Devices
49
239,494
4,888
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals,
NEC
231
80,147
347
Pharmaceutical
Preparations
224
5,161
23
Noncommercial
Research
Organizations
30
4,034
134
Testing
Laboratories
121
4,242
35
Commercial,
Physical
and
Biological
Research
108
2,799
26
All
Others
2,446
275,886
113
Total
3,209
611,763
191
Data
Source:
Biennial
Reporting
System,
1999
The
range
of
averages
of
hazardous
waste
for
each
lab
runs
from
4,888
tons
for
semi
conductors
and
related
devices
to
26
tons
for
commercial
physical
and
biological
research.
This
waste
quantity
is
significantly
higher
than
the
colleges
and
universities
included
under
the
proposed
rule,
which
generated
an
average
of
1.9
to
3.3
tons.
2
This
higher
average
laboratory
hazardous
waste
generation
per
facility
is
one
reason
the
Agency
chose
to
restrict
the
proposed
rule
to
only
college
and
university
laboratories.

Without
more
in­
depth
information
about
these
facilities,
the
Agency
is
unable
to
estimate
the
potential
operating
costs
associated
with
expanding
the
proposed
rule
to
non­
academic
laboratories.
Additional
information
needed
would
include
current
hazardous
waste
determination
practices
(
e.
g.,
who
makes
the
determination),
number
of
laboratories
per
facility,
availability
of
a
central
accumulation
area,
and
other
factors.
However
we
can
estimate
the
increased
burden
associated
expanding
the
proposed
rule.

For
purposes
of
illustrating
potential
impacts,
we
assume
that
there
may
be
3,200
facilities
eligible
3Assessment
of
Potential
Costs,
Benefits
and
Other
Impacts
For
the
Proposed
Revised
Standards
Applicable
to
Generators
of
Hazardous
Waste;
Subpart
K
­
Academic
Laboratories,
December
3,
2005.
Section
5.5.
and
wishing
to
be
regulated
under
the
proposed
regulatory
option.
Additional
costs
to
states
and
other
governmental
agencies
for
tracking
applications,
incremental
costs
for
inspections
and
additional
costs
for
training
inspectors
are
summarized
in
Table
2,
using
the
assumptions
and
unitcost
estimates
presented
in
the
Economic
Assessment.
3
Overall,
initial
costs
to
state
governments
are
estimated
at
nearly
$
100,000.
Subsequent
annual
costs
are
estimated
to
range
from
approximately
$
5,500
to
nearly
$
24,000.
Since
the
rule
is
optional
and
there
is
a
likelihood
of
an
increased
state
burden
if
the
scope
of
the
rule
were
expanded
many
or
all
states
except
Iowa
may
choose
not
to
adopt
the
rule.
We
assume
only
laboratories
that
will
experience
a
cost
savings
will
chose
to
be
subject
to
this
rule.
Therefore
we
assume
there
is
no
incremental
cost
impact
to
laboratories.
Table
2.
Estimated
Incremental
Burden
to
States
Associated
With
Expanding
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Include
Non­
academic
Laboratories
Cost
Item
Cost
Per
Unit
Units
Frequency
Number
of
Items*
Proposed
Regulatory
Option
Alternative
Option
A
(
more
stringent)
Alternative
Option
B
(
less
stringent)

Review
of
Notifications
1/
$
29
Review
of
one
notification
Initial/
one­
time
3,200
$
92,800
$
92,800
NR
Initial
Inspector
Training
Costs
2/
$
76
Cost
per
training
one
inspector
Initial/
one­
time
60
$
4,560
$
4,560
$
4,560
Annual
Inspector
Training
Costs
3/
$
76
Cost
Per
Training
Replacement
Inspectors
Annual
12
$
912
$
912
$
912
LMP
Review
4/
$
57
Increased
Inspection
Costs
Annual
320
NR
$
18,240
NR
NR­
Not
required
1/
Costs
are
for
initial
notification
and
will
be
incurred
at
adoption;
estimate
represents
a
one­
time­
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.

*
Number
of
Items
refers
to
the
number
of
type
of
cost
item
listed
under
the
first
column.
For
example
for
review
of
notifications
we
assume
there
are
3,200
notifications.