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.  State, county and city employers are not subject to
Federal OSHA requirements, and OSHA requirements would only apply to
these employers in states with state-run OSHA programs.  However, it
appears that most colleges, universities, and hospitals, including state
or local facilities in those states without approved state OSHA
programs, currently provide a variety of training to employees and other
personnel (e.g., students) that utilize hazardous materials in
operations.  In all circumstances, facilities are assumed to already
train their employees to meet their responsibilities under OSHA
regulations.  The existing OSHA training is assumed to meet the training
requirements for the final rule.

Training is also required for students under the final rule.  The
predominant practice by colleges and universities currently is to
provide training to students regarding proper laboratory and waste
management.  It is also assumed that teaching hospitals also provide
training to their students regarding proper laboratory and waste
management.  The assumption is that this current level of training will
meet the final regulatory requirements.

Training costs were estimated for the baseline and final rule costs
estimates.  However, they are assumed to be equal, as indicated above.
Appendix D documents additional information used to develop unit cost
estimates for training.

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, or
labeled as hazardous waste.  The hazardous waste code will be added once
the hazardous waste determination is made.

The costs for the hazardous waste determination are estimated using the
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.10
Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, January 2008.  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 is typically
conservative in the determination of hazardous waste and will generally
assume a waste is hazardous unless it is rational to make a
non-hazardous determination.

Hazardous Waste Disposal

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 outputs from RACER
2003 cost estimating software inflated to 2008$.  The waste chemicals
are assumed to be packed in a D.O.T. approved drum.  The drums are
estimated to cost $102.34 each.  The cost to hire contractors to
lab-pack a drum ranges from $300 to $600 per drum.  A midpoint of $450
per drum was inflated to 2008$ resulting in an estimated cost of $483.10
to lab pack a drum.  Costs to lab pack a drum were not modified between
packing from laboratories and CAAs.  The cost for loading a drum on a
waste hauler truck is estimated as $6.69 per drum (2008$).  The
incineration of a 55-gallon drum is estimated to cost $2,192 (2008$).

The cost to supply the drum, pack, 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 final rule; therefore, hazardous waste
disposal costs are not affected by the final rule.

4.5	Limitations

Important limitations concerning the entity categorization and unit cost
estimates developed in this section include:

Average laboratory waste generation rates were derived based on
generator status (LQG, SQG, and CESQG) using 2005 Biennial Report data.
The same average waste generation rate is applied to both large and
small laboratory systems.  For example, a college and university with a
large laboratory system (525 labs and studios) that is an LQG has an
average laboratory generation rate of 22.62 tons per year.  This same
average laboratory waste generation rate was used for a college and
university with a small laboratory system (25 labs and studios) that is
an LQG.  One would presume that large laboratory systems would generate
more waste on average than small laboratory systems.  Data were not
available to vary waste generation by laboratory system size.

The above limitation concerning our assumption of a constant average
waste generation rate for both large and small laboratory systems likely
creates an overstatement of the number of waste containers a small
laboratory system generates.  The container sizes used to accumulate
waste chemicals in labs are variable, ranging from small vials up to
containers holding greater than a gallon of waste.  We had to adjust,
based on professional judgment, the container estimates used in the
analysis for small laboratory systems to control for differential waste
streams.

Hazardous waste survey data were not available for teaching hospital
operations, as it was for colleges and universities, for quantifying the
number of labs and percentage of facilities with central accumulation
areas.  As a result, greater uncertainty is embedded in the estimates
for teaching hospitals.

As noted previously, the estimates for the potential number of colleges
and universities assumed to retain/maintain their typical generator
status due to the final rule may be inflated.  This outcome is due to
the fact that insufficient data exists to better refine estimates and
the assumptions underlying the estimates.

The cost analysis assumes national average labor rates for employees
working at eligible academic entities.  The labor rates do not account
for variability in regional or local labor market conditions.

COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

This section presents the estimated cost impacts of the final laboratory
rule based on the methodology described in Section 4.  To begin, Section
5.1 summarizes our estimates of baseline and final rule costs by model
facility; these cost values serve as the basis for the aggregate cost
and economic impact estimates for the final rule, which are presented in
Section 5.2.  Section 5.3 assesses the magnitude of the rule's cost
impacts relative to the annual revenues of affected facilities.  In
Section 5.4 we conduct a sensitivity analysis in which we assume that
all 1,580 eligible academic entities opt into the alternative standards
established by the final rule.  Section 5.5 briefly summarizes the
incremental cost impacts expected under the two alternative options
(Options A and B) considered by EPA, and Section 5.6 presents the
estimated impacts of the final rule on state governments.

5.1	Baseline, Final Rule, and Incremental Costs for Model Facilities

Tables 5-1a and 5-1b summarize the baseline, final rule, and incremental
costs (or savings) associated with each of the model facilities
described in Section 4.  Although we estimated the costs of several
waste management activities for each model facility, Tables 5-1a and
5-1b present aggregate costs per model facility for ease of
presentation.  Appendix E includes more detailed versions of these
tables with the various cost components for each model facility (e.g.,
training, labeling, etc.) presented separately.

The key findings suggested by the results in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b are as
follows:

Facilities that do not operate CAAs are likely to experience more
significant cost savings under the final rule than facilities that
operate CAAs.  Although this is not true in all cases, the cost data in
Tables 5-1a and 5-1b tend to show more significant savings for
facilities that do not operate a central accumulation area than
facilities that operate a CAA.  For example, very large hospitals that
do not operate a CAA are expected to experience annual cost savings of
$15,000 to $61,000 per facility under the final rule.  In contrast, our
analysis suggests that similar hospitals that operate a CAA would
experience an increase in costs if they were to opt into the alternative
standards.  The greater savings for facilities that do not operate CAAs
reflects their ability to consolidate waste from more laboratories into
a single off-site shipment to a hazardous waste incinerator for disposal
under the final rule (10 laboratories per shipment) compared to baseline
(8 laboratories per shipment).

Facilities that experience a change in generator status as a result of
the final rule are likely to realize a more significant cost savings
than facilities that do not experience a change in generator status.
This effect is driven largely by a reduction in off-site transportation
costs associated with a reduction in the number of shipments per year.

We expect the impacts of the final rule to be more significant for large
facilities than for small facilities. By definition, small facilities
have fewer laboratories than large facilities; therefore, the estimated
cost impacts for these facilities are less pronounced than those for
large facilities.

CESQGs are not expected to experience a cost savings under the final
rule.  This primarily reflects the Subpart K requirement that CESQGs
must remove all waste from their respective laboratories at least once
every six months.  In contrast, current regulation requires less
frequent removals of hazardous waste for CESQGs.

It is important to note that the results in Tables 5-1a and 5-1b reflect
the Agency's updated estimates of the quantity of hazardous waste
generated by laboratories at eligible academic entities on an annual
basis.  As discussed in Section 3, the Agency revised its methodology
for estimating the annual generation of laboratory hazardous wastes in
response to public comments on the proposed rule.  This has resulted in
a significant increase in EPA's estimates of the quantity of laboratory
hazardous waste generated in the U.S.  As indicated in Table 3-3, we
estimate that laboratories at eligible academic entities generate more
than 9,000 tons of hazardous waste per year, or approximately 5.8 tons
per eligible academic entity.  In contrast, for the proposed rule, we
estimated that laboratory hazardous waste generation ranged from
approximately 3,400 to 6,000 tons per year, or 1.9 to 3.3 tons per
facility.  Because our revised waste quantity estimates exceed those
used for the proposal, our impact estimates for the final rule are
higher than those  generated for the proposed rule.

Table 5-1a.  Estimated Baseline, Final Rule, and Incremental Costs for
Laboratories

 (Very Large and Large Models, 2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to
CESQGs2

	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o
CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA

	Very Large	Very Large	Very Large	Very Large	Large	Large	Large	Large
Large	Large	Large	Large

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratory Costs (excluding
facility-wide administrative costs)3

	Baseline Costs	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,881,935	2,083,111	1,881,935	2,083,111
303,920	350,487	303,920	350,487

Final Rule Costs	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,884,598	2,069,312	1,883,723	2,024,706
303,834	347,272	303,834	347,272

Incremental Costs (Savings)	NA	NA	NA	NA	2,663 	(13,799)	1,789 	(58,406)
(86)	(3,215)	(86)	(3,215)

Art Studios (excluding facility-wide administrative costs)3

	Baseline Costs	NA	NA	NA	NA	62,016	68,578	62,016	68,578	11,406	15,452
11,406	15,452

Final Rule Costs	NA	NA	NA	NA	62,143	68,921	61,268	66,297	11,397	14,608
11,397	14,608

Incremental Costs (Savings)	NA	NA	NA	NA	127 	343 	(747)	(2,281)	(9)
(843)	(9)	(843)

Facility-wide administrative costs for colleges & universities and
non-profit research institutes (excluding hospitals)4

Baseline Costs	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,333	1,333	1,333	1,333	515	515	515	515

Final Rule Costs	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,898	1,898	1,080	1,080	1,080	1,080	822	822

Incremental Costs (Savings)	NA	NA	NA	NA	565 	565 	(253)	(253)	565 	565
308 	308

Hospitals (including facility-wide administrative costs)5

Baseline Costs	1,622,382	1,823,558	1,622,382	1,823,558	205,100	207,479
205,100	207,479	NA	NA	NA	NA

Final Rule Costs	1,624,624	1,808,238	1,622,931	1,762,814	205,892	208,304
204,199	205,737	NA	NA	NA	NA

Incremental Costs (Savings)	2,242 	(15,320)	550 	(60,745)	792 	825
(900)	(1,742)	NA	NA	NA	NA

1.  The very large and large models represented in this table are
assumed to have more than 50 labs and 5 studio labs for CUs, non-profit
research institutes, and very large teaching hospital laboratories.

2.  Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit institute
or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the HW that is unused
commercial chemical product generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining generation status.  This may allow
some facilities to reduce their reported generator status to their
typical status going from large quantity generator (LQG) to small
quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity
generator (CESQG).

3.  The cost estimates for this category reflect costs associated with
training, travel, HWID, labeling, manifests, recordkeeping for lab
cleanouts, drum transportation, and drum disposal.

4.  These administrative costs reflect BRS reporting, general
administration, contingency planning, developing and maintaining a lab
management plan, and notification.  These costs are different for
colleges, universities, and non-profit research institutes than for
hospitals.

5.  The cost estimates for hospitals include all of the cost elements
described above in footnotes 3 and 4 of this table.

	NA = Not Applicable – The “very large” laboratory system size
category is only used as a model for teaching hospitals.  The “large
SQG” laboratory system size category was not used as a model for
teaching hospitals.

Table 5-1b.  Estimated Baseline, Final Rule, and Incremental Costs for
Laboratories

 (Small Models, 2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs	CESQGs

	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	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	Small	Small

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratory Costs (excluding
facility-wide administrative costs)3

Baseline Costs	252,923	258,839	252,923	258,839	43,460	46,860	43,460
46,860	42,934	45,025

Final Rule Costs	253,039	259,153	252,164	256,529	43,449	46,019	43,449
46,019	43,422	45,974

Incremental Costs (Savings)	117 	315 	(757)	(2,309)	(10)	(840)	(10)
(840)	488 	948

Art Studios (excluding facility-wide administrative costs)3

	Baseline Costs	32,417	32,928	32,417	32,928	3,946	4,457	3,946	4,457
3,008	3,264

Final Rule Costs	32,433	32,971	31,558	32,096	3,945	4,463	3,945	4,463
3,454	3,714

Incremental Costs (Savings)	16 	43 	(858)	(831)	(1)	5 	(1)	5 	445 	449

Facility-wide administrative costs for colleges & universities and
non-profit research institutes (excluding hospitals)4

Baseline Costs	1,333	1,333	1,333	1,333	515	515	515	515	257	257

Final Rule Costs	1,898	1,898	1,080	1,080	1,080	1,080	822	822	822	822

Incremental Costs (Savings)	565 	565 	(253)	(253)	565 	565 	308 	308
565 	565

Hospitals (including facility-wide administrative costs)5	Very small
Very Small

Baseline Costs	NA	NA	NA	NA	23,984	22,315	23,984	22,315	7,791	6,701

Final Rule Costs	NA	NA	NA	NA	24,550	22,894	24,292	22,636	8,792	7,706

Incremental Costs (Savings)	NA	NA	NA	NA	565 	578 	308 	321 	1,001 	1,005

1.  The small models represented in this table are assumed to have less
than 50 CU or non-profit research institute laboratories, less than five
studio laboratories, six SQG teaching hospital laboratories, and two
CESQG teaching hospital laboratories.

2.  Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the waste generated
from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in determining
generation status.  This may allow some facilities to reduce their
reported generator status to their typical status going from large
quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).

3.  The cost estimates for this category reflect costs associated with
training, travel, HWID, labeling, manifests, recordkeeping for lab
cleanouts, drum transportation, and drum disposal.

4.  These administrative costs reflect BRS reporting, general
administration, contingency planning, developing and maintaining a lab
management plan, and notification.  These costs are different for
colleges, universities, and non-profit research institutes than for
hospitals.

5.  The cost estimates for hospitals include all of the cost elements
described above in footnotes 3 and 4 of this table.

NA = Not Applicable – The “small LQG” laboratory system size
category was not used as a model for teaching hospitals.

5.2	 Aggregate Impacts

In this section we summarize the aggregate impacts expected under the
final rule.  Our impact estimates reflect the voluntary adoption of the
rule by the States.  As indicated in Section 3, because the final rule
is equally as stringent as current regulation, those States that have
been delegated authority to oversee and administer their own RCRA
program will have the option to adopt or not adopt the final rule.  For
the purposes of this analysis, we assume that states which have adopted
at least 85 percent of RCRA rule changes over a five-year period will
adopt the final rule.  Based on this assumption, we estimate that 21
states will not adopt the rule, instead leaving their RCRA programs
unchanged relative to the baseline.  Consequently, we further estimate
that 169 LQGs, 323 SQGs, and 181 CESQGs (673 facilities in total) will
have the opportunity to opt into the alternative standards established
by the final rule.

For this analysis, we assume that eligible academic entities that
experience cost savings by opting into Subpart K will be the only
eligible academic entities that participate in Subpart K.  Tables 5-2
and 5-3 present our estimates of the number of eligible entities
expected to adopt the final rule and the annual cost impacts of the
rule, respectively.  As indicated in Table 5-2, we estimate that 112 of
the 673 eligible entities in adopting States will opt into the
alternative standards.  Approximately 73 percent of these entities are
four-year colleges or universities or non-profit research institutes.
Table 5-3 shows that we estimate cost savings of approximately $400,000
for the 112 eligible entities projected to adopt the final rule.
Approximately 93 percent of these savings are realized by four-year
colleges or universities or non-profit research institutes.

It is important to note that the data and methods upon which the results
in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 are based may not capture the large variation in
hazardous waste generation and management practices of individual
eligible academic entities.  For some eligible entities, the cost
impacts of the final rule may differ significantly from the estimates
presented in this document due to facility-specific practices or
characteristics.  In addition, the assumptions employed for this
analysis may not apply universally to all facilities.  For example, some
eligible entities may manage their laboratory waste onsite, whereas our
analysis assumes that this hazardous waste is managed off-site.

Table 5-2. Number of Facilities Expected to Adopt the Final Rule by
Institution Type, Lab System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation

Institution	System Size	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs1	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs1	CESQGs

	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o
CAA	Totals

4-year C/U and Non-profit Research Institutes2,3

(>50 labs, > 5 studios)	Large	0	9	0	3	0	14	0	1	0	0	27

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	4	0	0	46	0	5	0	0	55

2-year C/U3

(>50 labs, > 5 studios)	Large	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	4

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	13	0	1	0	0	14

Vocational3

(>50 labs, > 5 studios)	Large	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	2

Teaching Hospital3

(>50 abs)	Very Large	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2

(15 labs)	Large	0	0	6	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	7

(6 labs)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

(2 labs)	Very Small	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Totals	0	11	10	4	0	80	0	7	0	0	112

1.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the HW that is unused commercial chemical product
generated from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in
determining the entity’s generation status.  This may allow some
eligible academic entities to reduce their reported generator status to
their typical generator status going 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 27
percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are assumed to maintain their
typical generator status under the rule.

2.  For purposes of modeling non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and numbers of laboratories.

3.  For eligible academic entities, as applicable, photography labs are
a part of the total lab count, being classified alternatively as art
studios or research labs, depending on their function.

Table 5-3. Expected Cost Savings of the Rulemaking by Institution Type,
Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation for
Facilities Adopting the Regulatory Option (2008 $)1

Institution	System Size

	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs

	w/ CAA	w/o

CAA	w/ CAA	w/o

CAA	w/

CAA	w/o CAA	w/

CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	Totals

4-year C/U and Non-Profit Research Institutes3,4

(>50 labs, >5 studios)	Large	0	(109,791)	0	(181,640)	0	(47,613)	0
(4,793)	0	0	(343,836)

(<= 50 labs, <=5 studios)	Small	0	0	(7,962)	(1,445)	0	(12,447)	0	(2,474)
0	0	(24,329)

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs, >5 studios)	Large	0	(5,490)	0	0	0	(13,391)	0	(1,598)	0	0
(20,478)

(<= 50 labs, <=5 studios)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	(3,457)	0	(675)	0	0	(4,132)

Vocational4

(>50 labs, >5 studios)	Large	0	0	0	0	0	(2,976)	0	0	0	0	(2,976)

(<= 50 labs, <=5 studios)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	(576)	0	(225)	0	0	(801)

Teaching Hospitals4

(>50 abs)	Very Large	0	1,757	0	(1,484)	0	0	0	0	0	0	273

(15 labs)	Large	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

(6 labs)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

(2 labs)	Very Small	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Totals	0	(113,523)	(7,962)	(184,569)	0	(80,460)	0	(9,763)	0	0	(396,279)

1.  Estimates presented correspond with the laboratory hazardous waste
quantity estimate presented in Table 3-3.  Numbers may not add due to
independent rounding.

2.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status.
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going 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 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to attain their typical generator status under the rule.

3.  For purposes of modeling non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs due to similarities in waste generation
statistics and numbers of laboratories.  The estimates for colleges and
universities and vocational institutions are based on the college and
university lab and art studio incremental costs presented in Table 5-1.

4. For eligible academic entities, as applicable,, photography labs are
a part of the total lab count.  The estimates for all eligible academic
entities are based on the correlating incremental costs, including
facility-wide administrative costs, presented in Table 5-1.  SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1

5.3	Eligible Academic Entity Average Cost Impacts As a Percent of
Average Revenue

To provide context for the cost impacts presented in this section, Table
5-4 presents average cost impacts by model facility as a percentage of
average revenues.  The overall impacts range from a cost savings of 0.1
percent to an increase in costs of nearly 0.6 percent.  Because
vocational school revenues are fairly modest relative to the other
facility types examined as part of this analysis, the estimated cost
impacts for these facilities represent a larger share of revenues than
the cost impacts for other facility types.  Table 5-4 also shows that
some eligible academic entity categories have substantial annual
revenues but modest cost impacts resulting from the rule  (e.g.,
teaching hospitals).  The estimated cost impacts for these facilities
represent only a small fraction of their revenues.

5.4	Sensitivity Analysis: Impacts if the Final Rule Is Adopted by All
Eligible Academic Entities

As indicated above, our analysis assumes that eligible entities will opt
into the alternative standards only if (1) they are located in a State
expected to adopt the final rule as part of its RCRA program and (2) if
the cost savings (i.e., benefits) of opting in exceed the corresponding
costs.  It is possible, however, that the rule will be adopted by more
States than we expect and that individual entities may opt into the rule
for reasons not considered in our analysis (e.g., improved risk
management).  To address these uncertainties, we conducted a sensitivity
analysis in which we assumed that all 1,580 eligible academic entities
that we identified would opt into the alternative standards.

The results of this sensitivity analysis are presented in Table 5-5.  As
indicated in the table, we estimate that 100 percent opt-in would lead
to a $600,000 increase in costs among eligible academic entities.  This
stands in contrast to the cost savings expected under the assumptions
that underpin our primary cost estimates in Table 5-3.  The cost
increase for small, CESQG 4-year colleges and universities and
non-profit research institutes accounts for more than 70 percent of this
increase in costs.

Table 5-4. Estimated Average Impact Per Eligible Academic Entity by
Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA
Operation As a Percentage of Annual Revenue1

Institution	Annual Revenue1

($ million)	Impacts as a Percent of Annual Revenue

LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs

w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/CAA	w/o CAA	w/CAA	w/o CAA	w/CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA

4-year C/U & Non-profit Research Institutes3,4

(>50 labs,

> 5 studios)	67.0	0.01%	-0.02%	0.00%	-0.08%	0.00%	-0.01%	0.00%	-0.01%
0.00%	0.00%

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	67.0	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
0.00%	0.00%

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs,

> 5 studios)	28.7	0.01%	-0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-0.01%	0.00%	-0.01%
0.00%	0.00%

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	28.7	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
0.01%

Vocational

(>50 labs,

> 5 studios)	0.6	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.07%	-0.55%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
0.00%

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	0.6	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.09%	-0.04%	0.05%	0.00%	0.24%
0.31%

Teaching Hospitals4

Very Large (>50 labs)

	91.7	0.00%	-0.02%	0.00%	-0.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Large (15 labs)

	91.7	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Small (6 labs)

	91.7	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Very Small (2 labs)

	91.7	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

1.  Annual revenue for each class of academic institutions, taken from
Table 3-4, represents the average total revenue for the entire NAICS
code (e.g., NAICS 61121, 4-yr CUs, has an estimated average revenue of
$67 million).  Using average NAICS industry estimates of revenue for all
sizes of institutions in the particular industry misrepresents impact
for the smallest and largest entities.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status.
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going 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 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

3.  For purposes of modeling non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and numbers of laboratories.

4. For eligible academic entities, as applicable, photography labs are a
part of the total lab count, being classified alternatively as art
studios or research labs, depending on their function.   SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1

Table 5-5.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Aggregate Incremental Annual Costs of
the Rule by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status,
and CAA Operation Assuming 100 Percent Adoption (2008 $)

Institution	System Size

	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs1	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs1	CESQGs

	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o
CAA	Totals

4-year C/U and Non-profit Research Institutes2,3

(>50 labs, >5 studios)	Large	$533,362	($257,845)	$46,418	($426,585)
$31,945	($111,819)	$1,486	($11,256)	$0	$0	($194,294)

(<= 50 labs, <=5studios)	Small	$18,839	$3,689	($18,700)	($3,395)
$126,163	($29,232)	$6,805	($5,810)	$181,282	$278,733	$558,376

2-year C/U3

(>50 labs, >5 studios)	Large	$13,418	($12,892)	$787	$0	$8,926	($31,449)
$425	($3,752)	$0	$0	($24,538)

(<= 50 labs, <=5studios)	Small	$698	$0	$0	$0	$35,414	($8,120)	$1,775
($1,584)	$58,430	$88,331	$174,943

Vocational3

(>50 labs, >5 studios)	Large	$0	$0	$0	$0	$1,879	($6,989)	$0	$0	$0	$0
($5,110)

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	$6,640	($1,353)	$296	($528)
$25,469	$39,258	$69,782

Teaching Hospital3

(>50 labs)	Very Large	$58,287	($61,283)	$5,487	($60,745)	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
$0	($58,255)

(15 labs)	Large	$31,692	$4,126	($13,512)	($3,485)	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
$18,822

(6 labs)	Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	$42,377	$20,237	$2,153	$962	$0	$0	$65,729

(2 labs)	Very Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$18,000	$22,097	$40,098

Totals	$656,295	($324,205)	$20,480	($494,210)	$253,344	($168,726)
$12,940	($21,967)	$283,181	$428,420	$645,552

1.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status.
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going 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 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

2. For purposes of modeling non-profit research institutes facilities
were combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and numbers of laboratories.

3.  For eligible academic entities, as applicable, photography labs are
a part of the total lab count, being classified alternatively as art
studios or research labs, depending on their function.  The estimates
for colleges and universities and vocational institutions are based on
the college and university lab and art studio incremental costs,
including facility-wide administrative costs, presented in Table 5-1.

   Note:  Parenthetical numbers indicate incremental cost savings.
Numbers may not add due to independent rounding.

5.5	Sensitivity Analysis: Aggregate Cost Impacts Under Alternative
Options A and B

During the development of the final rule, EPA examined two alternative
options (Option A and Option B) to help illustrate the potential impacts
of the final rule.  We present the impacts associated with these two
options as a sensitivity analysis to the primary results presented in
Section 5.2.  As indicated in Section 2, Option A is more stringent than
the final rule, while Option B is less stringent than the final rule.
Key differences between these options and the final rule are as follows:

Maximum hazardous waste accumulation time in the laboratory: The final
rule specified a limit of six months.  In contrast, Option A specifies a
shorter time limit of three months, while the limit under Option B is 12
months;

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Maximum number of days that laboratories can
exceed the maximum volume of hazardous waste: Under the final rule, this
limit is 10 days, whereas the limit is seven days and 14 days under
Option A and Option B, respectively;

Labeling: Option A includes more prescriptive labeling requirements than
the final rule.  The labeling requirements under Option B are identical
to those under the final rule; and

LMP Provisions: Under the final rule, an LMP with 9 elements is required
with contents of Part I of the LMP enforceable and the contents of Part
II of the LMP not.  In contrast, the LMP is considered an enforceable
document under Option A but is not required under Option B.

Section 2 includes additional information on Options A and B relative to
the final rule.

Tables 5-6 and 5-7 present the estimated cost impacts of Options A and
B, respectively, assuming 100 percent adoption.  Under Option A, the
more stringent option, we estimate that eligible entities would
experience a $10.8 million increase in their annual costs, whereas for
Option B, we estimate $0.8 million in annual cost savings.  By
comparison, when we assume 100 percent adoption of the final rule, we
estimate a net cost increase of $0.6 million per year.

Similar to the final rule, the alternative options would not be adopted
by the full universe of eligible academic entities if it were
promulgated.  As previously discussed in Section 5.2, we assume that
states which have historically adopted at least 85 percent of RCRA rule
changes will codify the final rule, limiting the potential impacts of
the rule to eligible academic entities in 21 states.  In addition, the
analysis of the final rule in Section 5.2 assumes that an eligible
entity will opt into the alternative standards only if the economic
benefits of doing so outweigh the corresponding costs.  Applying these
assumptions to Options A and B, we estimated the number of eligible
academic entities that would opt into each of these alternatives.  The
results of this analysis are presented in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 for Options
A and B, respectively.  As indicated in the exhibits, we would expect 78
eligible entities to opt into Option A, or 34 less than under the final
rule, and 305 eligible entities to opt into Option B (193 entities more
than under the final rule).

Table 5-6. Option A:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Aggregate Incremental
Annual Costs of the Rule by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size,
Generator Status, and CAA Operation

Assuming 100 Percent Adoption (2008 $)1

(numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings)

Institution	System Size	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs

	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o
CAA	Totals

4-year C/U and Non-Profit Research Institutes3,4

(>50 labs,

 > 5 studios)	Large	$533,362	$3,515,587	$46,418	$1,222,117	$31,945
$2,540,061	$1,486	($11,256)	$0	$0	$7,879,721

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	Small	$18,839	$3,689	($18,700)	($3,395)
$126,163	($29,232)	$6,805	($5,810)	$181,282	$278,733	$558,376

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	$13,418	$175,779	$787	$0	$8,926	$714,392	$425	($3,752)
$0	$0	$909,975

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	Small	$698	$0	$0	$0	$35,414	($8,120)	$1,775
($1,584)	$58,430	$88,331	$174,943

Vocational4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	$0	$0	$0	$0	$1,879	$158,754	$0	$0	$0	$0	$160,633

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	$6,640	($1,353)	$296	($528)
$25,469	$39,258	$69,782

Teaching Hospital

(>50 abs)	Very Large	$58,287	$651,476	$5,487	$161,698	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
$876,948

(15 labs)	Large	$31,692	$39,065	($13,512)	$13,962	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
$71,208

(6 labs)	Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	$42,377	$20,237	$2,153	$962	$0	$0	$65,729

(2 labs)	Very Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$18,000	$22,097	$40,098

Totals	$656,295	$4,385,597	$20,480	$1,394,382	$253,344	$3,394,739
$12,940	($21,967)	$283,181	$428,420	$10,807,412

1.  Estimates presented correspond with the laboratory hazardous waste
quantity estimate presented in Table 3-3.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status.
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going 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 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

3.  For purposes of modeling non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and numbers of laboratories.

4.  For eligible academic entities, as applicable, photography labs are
included in the total lab count, being classified alternatively as art
studios or research labs, depending on their function.  SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1   The estimates for colleges and universities and vocational
institutions are based on the college and university lab and art studio
incremental costs, including facility-wide administrative costs,
presented in Table 5-1.

Table 5-7. Option B:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Aggregate Incremental Annual
Costs of the Rule by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator
Status, and CAA Operation Assuming 100 Percent Adoption (2008 $)1

(numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings)

Institution	System Size	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs

	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o
CAA	Totals

4-year C/U and Non-Profit Research Institutes3,4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	$444,998	($268,960)	$13,629	($430,476)	($5,845)
($129,603)	($8,510)	($37,784)	$0	$0	($422,551)

(<= 50 labs, <=5 studios)	Small	$3,834	$1,466	($24,257)	($3,950)	($547)
($89,252)	($26,041)	($26,316)	$8,485	$14,012	($142,566)

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	$11,195	($13,448)	$231	$0	($1,633)	($36,451)	($2,432)
($12,595)	$0	$0	($55,132)

(<= 50 labs, <=5 studios)	Small	$142	$0	$0	$0	($153)	($24,792)	($6,793)
($7,177)	$2,735	$4,440	($31,599)

Vocational4

(>50 labs,

> 5 studios)	Large	$0	$0	$0	$0	($344)	($8,100)	$0	$0	$0	$0	($8,444)

(<= 50 labs, <=5 studios)	Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	($29)	($4,132)	($1,132)
($2,392)	$1,192	$1,973	($4,520)

Teaching Hospital

(>50 abs)	Very Large	$43,837	($63,506)	($70)	($61,301)	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
($81,041)

(15 labs)	Large	$9,463	$1,348	($21,848)	($4,596)	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
($15,634)

(6 labs)	Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	$696	$786	($4,791)	($2,014)	$0	$0	($5,322)

(2 labs)	Very Small	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$146	$275	$421

Totals	$513,469	($343,101)	($32,315)	($500,324)	($7,855)	($291,545)
($49,699)	($88,278)	$12,558	$20,701	($766,389)

1.  Estimates presented correspond with the laboratory hazardous waste
quantity estimate presented in Table 3-3.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status.
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going 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 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

3.  For purposes of modeling Non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and numbers of laboratories.

4.  For eligible academic entities, as applicable, photography labs are
included in the total lab count, being classified alternatively as art
studios or research labs, depending on their function.  The estimates
for colleges and universities and vocational institutions are based on
the college and university lab and art studio incremental costs,
including facility-wide administrative costs, presented in Table 5-1.

Table 5-8. Option A: Number of Model Facilities Expected to Adopt the
Final Rule by Institution Type, Lab System Size, Generator Status, and
CAA Operation1

Institution	System Size	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs

	w/ CAA	w/o

CAA	w/

CAA	w/o

CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/

CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o

CAA	Totals

4-year C/U and Non-Profit Research Institutes3,4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	4	0	0	46	0	5	0	0	55

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	13	0	1	0	0	14

Vocational4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	2

Teaching Hospital

(>50 labs)	Very Large	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

(15 labs)	Large	0	0	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6

(6 labs)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

(2 labs)	Very Small	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Totals	0	0	10	0	0	61	0	7	0	0	78

1.  Estimates presented correspond with the laboratory hazardous waste
quantity estimate presented in Table 3-3.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status.
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going 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 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

3.  For purposes of modeling non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and numbers of labs.

4.  For eligible academic entities, as applicable, photography labs are
included in the total lab count, being classified alternatively as art
studios or research labs, depending on their function.

Table 5-9. Option B: Number of Model Facilities Expected to Adopt the
Final Rule by Institution Type, Lab System Size, Generator Status, and
CAA Operation1

Institution**	System Size	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs

	w/

CAA	w/o

CAA	w/

CAA	w/o

CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/

CAA	w/o

CAA	w/ CAA	w/o

CAA	Totals

4-year C/U and Non-Profit Research Institutes3,4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	0	9	0	3	29	14	3	1	0	0	59

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	4	0	97	46	10	5	0	0	162

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	0	0	0	0	8	4	1	0	0	0	13

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	0	0	27	13	3	1	0	0	44

Vocational4

(>50 labs,

>5 studios)	Large	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	0	3

(<= 50 labs,

<= 5 studios)	Small	0	0	0	0	5	2	0	0	0	0	7

Teaching Hospital

(>50 labs)	Very Large	0	2	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6

(15 labs)	Large	0	0	6	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	7

(6 labs)	Small	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	1	0	0	4

(2 labs)	Very Small	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Totals	0	11	14	4	168	80	20	8	0	0	305

1.  Estimates presented correspond with the laboratory hazardous waste
quantity estimate presented in Table 3-3.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status.
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going 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 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

3.  For purposes of modeling non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and numbers of labs.

4.  For eligible academic entities, as applicable, photography labs are
included in the total lab count, being classified alternatively as art
studios or research labs, depending on their function.

5.6	Impacts on State Governments

As a result of the final rule, States may incur additional regulatory
and administrative costs.  These costs include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following:

Review of notifications: States will review opt in/out notifications
submitted by eligible academic entities on EPA Form 8700-12.

Inspector training: State agencies must review, research and train their
inspectors and responsible employees on the various provisions included
in the final rule.

Increased duration of inspections: Under the final rule's laboratory
management plan requirements, States will conduct additional review of
eligible academic entities' management of unwanted laboratory material.

Our approach for estimating the additional burden associated with these
activities is presented below.

Review of notifications.  To estimate the burden associated with
notification review, we rely on data presented in the Supporting
Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 261.14
“Notification of Regulated Waste Activity.”  According to these
data, a state agency review of EPA Form 8700-12 is estimated to have a
labor burden of 0.25 hours of technical staff.  In addition, inputting
notification information into a database is estimated to require 0.5
hours of clerical staff time.  Based on these hours estimates and the
labor rates presented in Appendix C, we estimate that the total cost per
notification review and input is $29.34 (2008$).  Given the number of
states expected to adopt the final rule (see Table 3-4), we estimate a
total cost of $19,745 for the review of notifications.   Assuming that
all states adopt the final rule and that the entire universe of 1,580
eligible academic institutions opt into the rule, these costs would
increase to $45,858.,

Inspector training.  Our estimate of the increase in inspector training
costs assumes, based on professional judgment, that each inspector will
spend two hours reviewing the regulation and the new requirements for
inspections.  We assume further that five inspectors per state are
responsible for oversight of the eligible academic entities.  To
estimate the costs associated with time spent on these activities, we
use the labor rate from the U.S. General Schedule for grade GS-11, step
5 as of January 2008 ($26.15 per hour for unloaded labor, adjusted to
$41 per loaded hour).  Based on these assumptions and data, we estimate
a total cost of $11,480 for the initial review and training of RCRA
inspectors.  Subsequently, as inspectors are replaced through
retirement, promotion, etc., additional inspectors will require
training.  Assuming that one inspector is replaced per state each year,
we estimate that this annual cost would be $2,296.

Increased duration of inspections.  Based on professional judgment, we
estimate that an additional 1.5 hours will be necessary to conduct a
RCRA inspection of academic entities eligible to opt into the
alternative standards established by the final rule.  This additional
time includes review of the LMP, labeling logs, and clean-out
information.  We assume that states inspect each LQG once every eight
years and that each SQG is inspected once every 12 years.  For purposes
of estimating state burden costs, four LQGs and eight SQGs are assumed
to be inspected every year.  Based on these assumptions and the labor
rates described above for inspector training, we estimate additional
annual costs of $738 for the inspection of eligible academic entities
adopting the final rule.

A summary of the estimated state costs associated with the rule is
presented in Table 5-10.  Because the impacts presented in Table 5-10
are modest, the rule will not trigger further UMRA requirements, even
with full adoption.

Table 5-10.  Summary of Estimated State Agency Costs Associated With the
Laboratory Management Rule

Cost Item	Final Regulation 5/

Review of Notifications 1/	$19,739

Initial Inspector Training Costs 2/	$11,480

Annual Inspector Training Costs 3/	$2,296

RCRA Inspections 4/	$738

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 time includes review of the LMP,
labeling logs, and clean-out information.

5/   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Estimated state costs training inspectors under
alternative regulatory alternatives A and B are the same as the final
rule. Costs for review of notifications is the same under for option A
as the final rule; review of notifications is not required under option
B.

6.0	QUALITATIVE BENEFITS

The final rule is expected to engender effects beyond those quantified
in Section 5.  Specifically, human health and environmental benefits
anticipated from the final rule, are summarized qualitatively in this
section.  Key examples of anticipated benefits from this final rule
include:

Encouraging laboratory cleanouts.  As previously discussed, the episodic
generation of hazardous waste, especially acutely hazardous waste,
during laboratory clean-outs may affect the RCRA generator status of
eligible academic entities.  Thus in order to avoid episodically
becoming a larger generator for a particular month, laboratories often
hold onto expired chemicals, some of which become dangerous over time.
The alternative requirements under the final rule address this issue by
allowing laboratories at eligible academic entities to conduct one
clean-out per year without counting the hazardous waste that is
commercial chemical product generated during the clean-out toward their
RCRA generator status.  The Agency believes that this provision will
encourage more frequent laboratory clean-outs, yielding greater
protection of human health and the environment as well as increased
environmental compliance.

Formalizing waste management practices.  The final rule requires that
eligible academic entities opting into the alternative standards develop
a laboratory management plan (LMP).  The goal of the LMP is for eligible
academic entities to carefully plan how they will implement the
alternative standards' performance-based requirements for safely
managing unwanted materials generated in laboratories.  EPA believes
that the LMP will ultimately work to increase environmental protection
and reduce risk by improving the coordination and integration of
hazardous waste management procedures.

Enhanced training of laboratory workers.  The RCRA satellite
accumulation area regulations do not require that students, nor
laboratory workers, in laboratories at eligible academic entities
receive RCRA hazardous waste management training.  To ensure that
students and laboratory workers understand their responsibilities under
Subpart K, the alternative standards require students and laboratory
workers to receive training commensurate with their duties in the
laboratory.  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 that workers are knowledgeable in the storage and compatibility
of waste materials, as well as reagents.

7.0	OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this section
summarizes the Agency’s analysis of equity considerations and other
regulatory concerns within the context of the final rule.  More
specifically, this section assesses potential impacts with respect to
the following issues:

Regulatory Planning and Review: requires examination and quantification
of costs and benefits of regulating with and without the Final Rule;

Regulatory Flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the final
rulemaking on small entities;

Environmental Justice: considers potential issues for minority and
low-income populations;

Children’s Health Protection: examines the potential impact of the
final rulemaking on the health of children;

Regulatory Takings: discusses the potential for takings to occur under
the final rulemaking;

Joint Impacts of Other EPA Policies and Rules: discusses how other
regulatory efforts together with the final rulemaking may affect the
universe of facilities affected by the Final Rule;

Unfunded Mandates: examines the implications of the final rulemaking
with respect to unfunded mandates;

Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty;

Tribal Governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates
to include impacts on Native American tribal governments and their
communities;

Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the final rulemaking on energy
use, supply, and distribution; and

Technology Transfer and Advancement: pertains to the use of voluntary
consensus standards in regulatory activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

7.1	Executive Order 12866 - Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency,
in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s)
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine
whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject
to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. The
Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:

1)	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;

2)	Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency;

3)	Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or

4)	Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has assessed the
magnitude of the costs, benefits, and other economic impacts likely to
result from the final rule.  Based on this analysis, EPA estimates that
the rule will result in benefits to society in the form of cost savings
of approximately $400,000 per year.  This is significantly below the
$100 million threshold established under point one above.  Thus, the
final rule is not expected to be an economically significant action.
OMB, however, will make the final determination as to whether the final
rule is significant based on the other criteria outlined above.

7.2	Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et.
seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any other
statute.  This analysis must be completed unless the agency is able to
certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.  Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The RFA provides default definitions for each type
of small entity.  Small entities are defined as: (1) a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.

This rule is projected to result in benefits in the form of cost savings
to facilities that opt into the alternative Subpart K standards.  As a
result, the final rule will not result in adverse impacts for any small
entities.  A Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA) of the
final rule is presented in Appendix A of this document. As indicated in
the RFSA, we estimate that 33 small entities will realize a cost savings
under the final rule.

7.3	Executive Order 12898 - 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 sustainable 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).

 EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations.  This final action is
designed to ensure more effective and efficient management of laboratory
wastes. The rule requirements reduce the risks from laboratory
operations.  Therefore, the final rule is not expected to result in any
disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income
communities relative to affluent or non-minority communities.

7.4	Executive Order 13045 - 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 Order applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be
“economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by
the Agency.

Because this rule is not expected to be economically significant, it is
not subject to Executive Order 13045.  Furthermore, the 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 will also decline.  The
management practices in this rule, therefore, are intended to reduce the
potential for unacceptable risks to children potentially exposed to the
constituents of concern.

7.5 	Executive Order 12630 - 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 affect a taking of private
property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order
12630.

7.6	Joint Impacts of Rules

As indicated above, the final rule would create alternative standards
for the management of unwanted materials generated by laboratories at
eligible academic entities.  These entities, however, would still be
required to comply with other environmental regulations, such as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) emissions standards established
under the Clean Air Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements established under the Clean Water Act.  In
addition, the final rule would not affect the obligation of eligible
academic entities to abide by workplace safety regulations established
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

7.7	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) calls on all federal agencies to provide a statement supporting
the need to issue any regulation containing an unfunded federal mandate
and describing prior consultation with representatives of affected
state, local, and tribal governments.

Today's final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.  The UMRA generally excludes from the
definition of "Federal intergovernmental mandate", duties that arise
from participation in a voluntary federal program.  This rule is a
voluntary program because the States are not required to adopt these
requirements as a condition of authorization (or otherwise).
Furthermore, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year.  The total net benefits (cost savings)
of this action are estimated to be $400,000 per year.   Finally, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

7.8	Executive Order 13132 - 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
Order to include regulations that 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.”

Under Section 6 of the Order, 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
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
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 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 is projected to result in
economic impacts to publicly and privately owned laboratory facilities.
States and/or EPA Regional Offices may realize minimal administrative
burden impacts if these entities experience increased administrative
needs, enforcement requirements, or voluntary information requests.
However, this rule 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.

7.9	Executive Order 13175 - 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 (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 regulation.

If EPA complies with the Order by consulting, the Agency must provide
OMB with all required information.  EPA must also summarize, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the proposed or final
rule, a description of the extent of its 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.”

The rule will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments, nor will it impose substantial direct
compliance costs on them.  The rule may have tribal implications to the
extent that qualifying academic institutions with laboratories
affiliated with tribal lands could be affected.  However, the rule will
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.  Finally, tribal governments will not be required to
assume any administrative or permitting responsibilities associated with
this rule.  Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do
not apply to this rule.

7.10	Executive Order 13211 - Energy Effects

Executive Order 13211“Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy
Effects to OMB for those matters identified as significant energy
actions.  As defined in Executive Order 13211, a “significant energy
action” is any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of
a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance
notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking that:
(1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or
any successor order and is likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by
OMB as a significant energy action.

This rule does not involve the supply, distribution, or use of energy
and is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to this rule.

7.11	National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.  NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical standards.  Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 REFERENCES

Backus, Bruce.  August 1, 2005.  Assistant Vice Chancellor,
Environmental Health and Safety at Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
 Personal Communication with Craig Simons, DPRA.

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.

DeLaHunt, John.  April 08, 2005. Assistant Director of Facilities
Services for EHS, Colorado College. Personal Communication with Rachel
Alford, EPA.

Diesslin, William M. May 16, 2005.  CHMM, CSP, Assistant Director Dept.
of Environmental Health & Safety, Iowa State University. Ames, IA.
Personal Communication with Rachel Alford, EPA.

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.  Consumer Price Index 1913-Present.

ICF International. May 1, 2008. “Phase I Lab Rule Data Analysis”.
Memorandum from Maribelle Rodriguez and Earl Harris, ICF to Patricia
Mercer, EPA; and

ICF International. May 1, 2008. “Phase II Lab Rule Data Analysis”.
Memorandum from Maribelle Rodriguez, Earl Harris, Jonathan Cohen, and
Nina Perlman, ICF to Patricia Mercer, EPA.

National Association of College and University Business Officers. 2005.
Hazardous Waste Survey Results.

National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System, financial survey, 1997. National Compensation
Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, July 2003.

Nebraska Department Of Environmental Quality. 2005. Environmental Fact
Sheet 05-185.

Office of Management and Budget.  January 1996.  Economic Analysis of
Federal Regulations Under Executive Order12866.

Office of Management and Budget. May 29, 2003.  OMB Circular No. A-76 -
Table C.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements
(RACER) 2003 cost estimating software, published by Earthtech, Inc.

Talley, Eric. May 19, 2008. Weill Cornell Medical School.  Personal
Communication with Craig Simons, DPRA.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census. Educational Services Industry
Series.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Educational Services Industry Series.
EC02-61I-01. Issued October 2000.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Industry Series.
EC02-54I-07. Issued September 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Health
Care and Social Assistance Industry Series. EC02-62I-02. Issued
September 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Educational Services Industry Series. EC02-61I-01. Issued September
2004.

U.S. Department of Education.  2001.  National Center for Education
Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  September 2007.
National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United
States. Bulletin 2590.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. December 2007.
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation.

U.S. EPA.  2005 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Reports) database.

U.S. EPA. September 1994.  Estimating Costs for the Economic Benefits of
RCRA Noncompliance, prepared for the Office of Regulatory Enforcement.

U.S. EPA. September 1, 2002.  Supporting Statement for EPA Information
Collection Request Number 261.14 "Notification of Regulated Waste
Activity,"

U.S. EPA. December 30, 2004.  Supporting Statement for Information
Collection Request Number 801.15 "Requirements for Generators,
Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous
Waste Manifest System.”

U.S. EPA. March 2, 2001.  Supporting Statement for Information
Collection Request Number 820.08 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards.

U.S. EPA. January 2008.  Supporting Statement for Information Collection
Request Number 820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards.

U.S. EPA. September 18, 2007.  Supporting Statement for EPA Information
collection Request 976.13 “The 2007 Hazardous Waste Report”.

U.S. Small Business Administration. 2008. Table of Small Business Size
Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System
Codes.  Effective March 11, 2008.

APPENDIX A:

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY SCREENING ANALYSIS

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 section
is to present the methodology and findings for the RFSA conducted in
support of the final rule.  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 standards on
small eligible academic entity institutions must be answered in the
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?

A.1	Effects on Small Business

This section briefly outlines the types of entities affected.  It also
presents summary impact data for all eligible academic entities, and
characterizes small entities according to size criteria set by the Small
Business Administration (SBA).  The number of small entities potentially
affected is estimated.  We also present estimated impacts under the
alternative scenarios and options.

The eligible academic entities potentially affected by the rule, and
their corresponding small business size standards are presented in Table
A-1. The small business size standard for all colleges, universities and
vocational schools is $6.5 million in revenue per year, meaning that all
colleges, universities and vocational schools with less than $6.5
million in revenue per year are considered small.  The small business
size standards for hospitals and non-profit research institutes are
$31.5 million in revenue and 500 employees, respectively.

Any business, small or large, has the option of choosing to be subject
to the alternative standards established by the final rule.  Any
business that chooses to be subject to the final 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.

Table A-1. Small Business Size Standards for Industries Potentially
Affected by the Final Rule

Facility Type

NAICS

Small Business Size Standards

($million/yr or # of employees)

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools	61131	$6.5

Junior Colleges and Technical Institutes	61121	$6.5

Other Technical and Trade Schools	611519	$6.5

Fine Art Schools	61161	$6.5

All other miscellaneous schools and instruction	611699	$6.5

Veterinary Services	5419	$6.5

Hospitals	622	$31.5

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
541712	500 employees

Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities	541720
500 employees

Source:  U.S. Small Business Administration.  Table of Small Business
Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System
Codes.  Effective March 11, 2008.

A.2		Type and Number of Entities Affected

The final rule could potentially affect an estimated 1,580 eligible
academic entities.  While adoption of the rule is optional, Table A-2
presents the number of eligible academic entities estimated to be small
entities. As shown, an estimated 557 eligible academic entities are
classified as small entities under SBA standards.

A.3		Economic Effect on Small Entities

We estimate that, under the final lab rule, a total of 112 eligible
academic entities will benefit from reduced costs.  We estimate that the
savings for these entities will represent 0.01 percent to 0.6 percent of
their annual revenue.  Vocational schools are near the high end of this
range because their revenues tend to be lower than those of other
facility types eligible for the final rule.

It is important to note that the universe of eligible academic entities
potentially affected includes approximately 35 percent small entities.
Thus, of the 112 eligible academic entities expected to opt into the
final rule, 33 are estimated to be small entities, as summarized in
Table A-3.

Table A-2.  Estimated Number of SBA-Defined Small Eligible Academic
Entities Potentially Affected by the Laboratory Rule

Generator Status

4-year School (NAICS 61131)1

2-year School (NAICS 61121)2

Other Vocational (NAICS 611519, 61161, 611699) 3	Teaching Hospitals

(NAICS 622)4	Non-profit Research Institutes (NAICS 5417)5	Total

Small Entity LQGs	65	2	0	45	7	119

Small Entity SQGs	110	54	23	52	24	263

Small Entity CESQGs	61	34	33	18	29	175

Total	236	90	56	115	60	557

1/   Estimated based on data from the 2005 Biennial Reporting System.

2/   USDC Census data from 1997 indicate that 24.5 percent of entities
classified in NAICS 61131 have net revenue of $6.5 million or less,
making them small entities.  The remaining 75.5 percent are large. (2002
Census data are not available for NAICS 61131.)

3/   USDC Census data from 1997 indicate that 40.4 percent of entities
classified in NAICS 61121 have net revenue of $6.5 million or less,
making them small entities.  The remaining 59.6 percent are large.
(2002 Census data are not available for NAICS 61121.)

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.

5/   USDC Census data from 2002 indicate that 43.4 percent of entities
classified in NAICS 622 have net revenue of $31.5 million or less,
making them small entities.  The remaining 56.6 percent are large
entities.

6/   USDC Census data from 2002 indicate that 98.2 percent of entities
classified in NAICS 5417 have less than 500 employees, making them small
entities.  The remaining 1.8 percent are large entities.

A.4	Potential for Significant Impacts on Small Entities

Because the final rule is voluntary, we expect that small eligible
academic entities will opt into the alternative standards only if doing
so would reduce the cost of managing their unwanted laboratory
materials.  As indicated in Section 5 of this document, the final rule
is expected to result in cost savings approaching $400,000 per year.
Therefore, we do not expect the final rule to have a significant,
adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Table A-3. Small Eligible Academic Entities Expected to Adopt the Final
Lab Rule1

Institution	LQG	SQG	CESQG	Total

4-year C/U	3	13	0	16

2-year C/U	0	7	0	7

Vocational	0	3	0	3

Teaching Hospitals	4	0	0	4

Non-Profit Research Institutes	1	2	0	3

Total Number of Adopting Small Entities	8	25	0	33

Total Number of Adopting Entities (small and not small)	25	87	0	112

1/ Estimated number of small and large entities are based on the
percentages in Department of Commerce data, summarized in Table A-3 and
applied to the total number of eligible academic entities projected to
adopt the lab rule.

APPENDIX B:

CALCULATION OF THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF WASTE CONTAINERS

Table Note: This table presents the calculation of the annual number of
waste containers generated by eligible academic entities.  As indicated
in the table heading cell, the calculation multiplies the number of
eligible academic entities in each category by the estimated number of
labs per entity in that category (both figures of which are presented in
Section 4.1 of the main body of the report), and then further multiples
this product by the number of containers per lab (derived in Section 4.3
of the report).  For example, in the upper left hand cell of the
calculations, there are 218 large 4-year CUs and Non-Profit Research
Institutes with LQG status.  Each of these entities, on average, is
estimated to have 525 labs or studios, each using 45 containers per
year.  The product of these values yields an estimated generation of
5,150,250 containers per year for this entity category.

Table B-1  Annual Number of Waste Containers Generated by  SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1  Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and
Central Accumulation Area (CAA) Operation

(Number of eligible academic entities x Number of Labs x Number of
Containers per Lab) = Number of Containers

	LQGs	SQGs	CESQGs	Total # of (Entities) & Containers

Institution Type	Laboratory System Size	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/
CAA	w/o CAA

	4-year CU

and Non-Profit

Research Institute	Large

	(218 x 525 x 45) = 5,150,250	(27 x 525 x 45) = 637,875	(75 x 181 x 5) =
67,875	(35 x 181 x 5) =

31,675	0	0	355

5,887,675

	Small

	(37 x 25 x 45) = 41,625	(5 x 25 x 45) =

5,625	(251 x 22 x 5) = 27,610	(119 x 22 x  5) =

13,090	(121 x 13 x 21) = 33,033	(142 x 13 x 21) = 38,766	675

159,749

2-year CU	Large

	(5 x 525 x 45) = 118,125	(1 x 525 x 45) = 23,625	(21 x 181 x 5) =
19,005	(10 x 181 x 5) =

9,050

	0	0	37

169,805

	Small

	(1 x 25 x 45) =

1,125	0	(70 x 22 x 5) =

7,700	(33 x 22 x 5) =

3,630	(39 x 13 x 21) = 10,647

	(45 x 13 x 21) = 12,285

	188

35,387

Vocational

		Large

	0	0	(4 x 181 x 5) =

3,620	(2 x 181 x 5) = 1,810	0	0	6

5,430

	Small

	0	0	(13 x 22 x 5) =

1,430	(6 x 22 x 5) = 660	(17 x 13 x 21) =

4,641	(20 x 13 x 21) = 5,460	56

12,191

Teaching Hospital	Very Large

	(36 x 501 x 34) = 613,224	(5 x 501 x 34) = 85,170	0	0	0	0	41

698,394

	Large

	(55 x 15 x 50) = 41,250	(7 x 15 x 50) =

5,250	0	0	0	0	62

46,500

	Small

	0	0	(82 x 6 x 7) = 3,444	(38 x 6 x 7) = 1,596	0	0	120

5,040

	Very Small

	0	0	0	0	(18 x 2 x 5) = 180	(22 x 2 x 5) = 220	40

400

Total Entities

Total Containers	352

5,965,599	45

757,545	516

130,684	243

61,511	195

48,501	229

56,731	1,580

7,020,571

APPENDIX C:

LABOR RATES AND ANNUALIZATION METHODOLOGY

FOR BEFORE-TAX COMPLIANCE COSTS

Labor Rates

Labor rates were determined using the National Compensation Survey:
Occupational Earnings in the United States, June 2006 released September
2007.  Labor fringe benefit and overhead rates are estimated using the
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation - December 2007, USDL:08-0331, March 12,
2008, and  OMB Circular No. A-76 - Table C, May 29, 2003, respectively.
The fringe benefits are estimated as 42 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 civilian salary employee.  The labor rates are inflated
from 2006 dollars to 2008 dollars using an inflation factor covering two
years of 4.1 percent.  Table C-1 presents the loaded and unloaded hourly
wages.  The following formula was used to determine the loaded, inflated
labor rates:

$39.47 (un-inflated base hourly rate for labor class) * 1.041 (inflation
adjustment covering two years) = $41.08/hr (2008$)

$41.08/hr (2008) * 1.42 (fringe benefits) * 1.12 (overhead markup) =
$65.33/hr (2008$)

Table C-1.   Labor Rates (2008$)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor Class	Applied Employee Position	Base
Rate

(2006 $/hour)

Unloaded	Labor Rate (2008 $/hour)

Unloaded	Labor Rate (2008 $/hour)

Loaded

Chemistry Teacher

Professor	$39.47

$41.08

$65.33

Laboratory Manager	$19.74

$20.54

$32.67

Student Laboratory Worker	$9.87

$10.27

$16.33

Chemical Engineer

EH&S Personnel	$38.88

$40.47

$64.36

Secretary

Clerical	$16.00

$16.66

$26.50

Education Administrators, Post Secondary

Management	$37.51

$39.05

$62.11

Drafter

Drafting	$22.73

$23.66

$37.63

Furnace, Kiln, Oven Operators

Process Technician	$14.92

$15.53

$24.70

The laboratory manager and student 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
student laboratory worker is assumed to be compensated at a rate of half
the laboratory manager rate.  The student laboratory worker is assumed
to be an undergraduate or masters student.  A laboratory manager is
assumed to be a doctorate level student for cost estimating purposes.
Professors or employees may also be lab managers.

Annualization Methodology

Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency, in conjunction with OMB 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 rule is a significant regulatory action under this
criterion, 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 specific annualized before-tax cost analysis was conducted for each
college or university, non-profit research institute and teaching
hospital affected by the rule.  Annual before-tax baseline, compliance,
and incremental compliance costs were estimated for each college or
university, non-profit research institutes, and teaching hospitals.
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, non-profit research institutes, and teaching hospitals.
 In reformulating the social costs of compliance, a discount rate (real
rate of return) of seven percent was used and 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)(CRFn)+ (Annual O&M Costs)

Where:	CRFn =	 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 specific borrowing period (n)

CRFn    =	 (1 + i)n(i)	=	 0.14238   when n = 10

					(1 + i) n -1

											= 0.18555   when n = 7

											= 0.29523   when n = 4

											= 0.38105   when n = 3

											= 0.55310   when n = 2

Costs are inflated from estimated year dollars to 2008 year dollars
using the rate of inflation as calculated using the Implicit Price
Deflator for Gross Domestic Product.

Costs for contingency planning, preparation of a lab management plan,
and the notification of intention to be subject to the final rule are
one-time costs for affected entities.  These costs will be incurred the
first year but not subsequent years.  These costs were annualized over
ten years.  The cost of updating lab management plans is annualized over
3 years.  All other costs are estimated as annual expenditures.

APPENDIX D:

TRAINING COST ESTIMATES

Training costs were developed as part of the baseline and final rule
cost estimates.  No incremental training costs are assumed because of
the rule.  In addition to the OSHA Laboratory Standards training cost
estimate for Subtitle K, the training cost estimates include Hazardous
Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (Hazwoper) and
Hazardous Communication Standard (Hazcom) training costs for
completeness.

Federal hazardous waste rules (40 CFR 262.34 and 40 CFR 265.16) require
LQGs and SQGs to provide training for employees that handle hazardous
waste.  This training must ensure that all employees are thoroughly
familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relevant
to their responsibilities.  LQGs are required to document this training
and provide annual refresher training.  Training costs include sessions
for the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) hazardous waste manifest
training, hazardous waste operations, emergency response (Hazwopper),
and the hazard communication program (Hazcom).

The estimated number of employees requiring training at the model
facilities is presented in Table D-1.  The EH&S staff estimates were
derived from percentage-based responses presented in the National
Association of College and University Business Officers, NACUBO 2005
Hazardous Waste Survey.  The employee numbers assume one laboratory
manager per chemical lab, five lab workers per chemical lab, and one
manager per two art studios; there are no laboratory workers for art
studios based on professional judgment.

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 cost per
person for each training course is presented in Table D-2.

Table D-1.   Estimated Numbers of Lab Workers

Large College or University and Non-profit Research Institute	LQG	SQG
CESQG

EH&S Staff

22

8

NA

Laboratory Manager

501

164

NA

Laboratory Worker

2,505

820

NA

Art Studio Manager

13

9

NA

Small College or University and Non-profit Research Institute	LQG	SQG
CESQG

EH&S Staff

2

2

1

Laboratory Manager

22

19

11

Laboratory Worker

110

95

55

Art Studio Manager

2

2

1

Very Large Hospitals	LQG	SQG	CESQG

EH&S Staff

22

8

NA

Laboratory Manager

501

164

NA

Laboratory Worker

2,505

820

NA

Very Small to Large Hospitals	LQG	SQG	CESQG

EH&S Staff

2

2

1

Laboratory Manager

15

6

2

Laboratory Worker

75

30

10

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/HazardousWasteSurveyResu
lts.pdf.

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 $16 is estimated for each college or
university to maintain logs of training, for all laboratory workers
(i.e., copies of training sign-in sheets).  This record-keeping cost is
estimated assuming 0.6 hours of clerical labor.

The initial training cost (i.e., non-refresher training) of an employee
is annualized using a capital recovery factor over the estimated period
of employment.  A laboratory worker is assumed to turn over 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
D-3.

Table D-2.   Training Course Fees

Training Course	Course Fee

40 Hour OSHA Hazwoper	$520.00

24 Hour OSHA Hazwoper	$310.00

8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher	$130.00

4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher	$125.00

4 hour Hazcom (used as a proxy for OSHA Laboratory Standards training)
$125.00

2 Hour Hazcom Annual Refresher (used as a proxy for OSHA Laboratory
Standards training)	$25.00

Table D-3.   Training Costs

Employee Type	Training Courses Attended	Total Cost per Employee

EH&S

40 Hour OSHA Hazwoper

4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher

8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher	$1,602

Laboratory Manager/Art Studio Manager – Preparing Manifests (Note that
most lab managers do not prepare manifests and estimated costs are
overstated.)

24 Hour OSHA Hazwoper

4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher

8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher	$970

Laboratory Manager/Art Studio Manager - Not Preparing Manifests

24 Hour OSHA Hazwopper

8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher

	$714

Laboratory Worker

4 hour Hazardous Communications Training

2 Hour Hazardous Communication Annual Refresher	$163

APPENDIX E:

DETAILED MODEL FACILITY COST ESTIMATES

As a supplement to the cost information presented in Section 5 of this
document, this appendix provides a detailed accounting of the baseline,
final rule, and incremental cost impacts for each model facility
examined in this analysis.  Table E-1 presents detailed baseline cost
estimates for each model facility, while Table E-2 details the costs of
each model facility under the final rule.  Table E-3 presents detailed
estimates of the incremental cost impacts of the final rule (i.e., the
difference between the cost estimates in Table E-1 and those in Table
E-2).

Table E-1a.  Estimated Baseline College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institutes, and Teaching Hospital

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Very Large and Large Models,
2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs	SQGs	SQGs

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA

 	Very Large	Very Large	Large 	Large 	Large 	Large

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

	Training	NA	NA	801,376	894,241	263,616	292,736

Travel	NA	NA	5,626	5,626	450	450

HWID	NA	NA	725,611	725,611	26,392	26,392

Labeling	NA	NA	157,489	157,489	5,728	5,728

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	140	8,822	69	1,446

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	1,607	101,236	803	16,873

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	190,086	190,086	6,862	6,862

Art Studios

Training	NA	NA	8,589	11,657	6,446	8,747

Travel	NA	NA	270	270	47	47

HWID	NA	NA	34,760	34,760	2,736	2,736

Labeling	NA	NA	7,544	7,544	594	594

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	140	420	69	207

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	1,607	4,821	803	2,410

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	9,106	9,106	711	711

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	333	333	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	772	772	515	515

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	228	228	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Notification	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Teaching Hospitals

Training	801,376	894,241	26,157	26,789	NA	NA

Travel	4,251	4,251	41	41	NA	NA

HWID	548,239	548,239	24,139	24,139	NA	NA

Labeling	118,992	118,992	5,239	5,239	NA	NA

Manifest Cost	140	8,822	140	280	NA	NA

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	0	0	0	0	NA	NA

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	101,236	1,607	3,214	NA	NA

Drum Disposal Cost	146,444	146,444	146,444	146,444	NA	NA

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	333	333	333	333	NA	NA

General Administration	772	772	772	772	NA	NA

Contingency Planning	228	228	228	228	NA	NA

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	0	0	0	0	NA	NA

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	0	0	0	0	NA	NA

Notification	0	0	0	0	NA	NA

1.  The very large and large model facilities represented in this table
are assumed to have more than 50 CU, non-profit research institute, and
very large teaching hospital laboratories and five studio laboratories,
as described in Section 4.

NA = Not Applicable – The “very large” laboratory system size
category is only used as a model for teaching hospitals.  The “large
SQG” laboratory system size category was not used as a model for
teaching hospitals.

Table E-1b.  Estimated Baseline College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institute, and Teaching Hospital

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Small Models, 2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	SQGs	SQGs	CESQGs	CESQGs

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA

 	Small 	Small 	Small 	Small 	Small 	Small

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

Training	36,861	39,283	32,274	33,929	32,274	33,929

Travel	247	247	52	52	30	30

HWID	31,863	31,863	3,058	3,058	7,435	7,435

Labeling	6,916	6,916	664	664	1,614	1,614

Manifest Cost	140	420	69	207	34	69

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	0	0	0	0	0	0

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	4,821	803	2,410	402	803

Drum Disposal Cost	175,289	175,289	6,540	6,540	1,145	1,145

Art Studios

Training	1,445	1,956	1,445	1,956	714	970

Travel	34	34	8	8	5	5

HWID	4,345	4,345	483	483	1,352	1,352

Labeling	943	943	105	105	293	293

Manifest Cost	140	140	69	69	34	34

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	0	0	0	0	0	0

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	1,607	803	803	402	402

Drum Disposal Cost	23,903	23,903	1,033	1,033	208	208

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	333	333	0	0	0	0

General Administration	772	772	515	515	257	257

Contingency Planning	228	228	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	0	0	0	0	0	0

Notification	0	0	0	0	0	0

Teaching Hospitals	Very Small Hospital

Training	NA	NA	12,394	10,725	4,676	3,586

Travel	NA	NA	16	16	5	5

HWID	NA	NA	1,352	1,352	322	322

Labeling	NA	NA	293	293	70	70

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	69	69	34	34

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	803	803	402	402

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	8,542	8,542	2,025	2,025

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	515	515	257	257

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Notification	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

1.  The small model facilities represented in this table are assumed to
have less than 50 CU or non-profit research institute laboratories, less
than five studio laboratories, six SQG teaching hospital laboratories,
and two CESQG teaching hospital laboratories, as described in Section 4.

NA = Not Applicable – The “very large” laboratory system size
category is only used as a model for teaching hospitals.  The “large
SQG” laboratory system size category was not used as a model for
teaching hospitals.

Table E-2a.  Estimated Final Rule College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institute, and Teaching Hospital

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Very Large and Large Models,
2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to
CESQGs2

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/
CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA

	Very Large	Very Large	Very Large	Very Large	Large	Large	Large	Large
Large	Large	Large	Large

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	801,376	894,241	801,376	894,241	263,616	292,736
263,616	292,736

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	4,501	0	4,501	0	360	0	360

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	725,611	725,611	725,611	725,611	26,392	26,392	26,392
26,392

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	163,628	163,628	163,628	163,628	5,951	5,951	5,951
5,951

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	140	7,142	69	3,512	69	1,171	69	1,171

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	2,150	2,150	2,150	2,150	141	141
141	141

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,607	81,953	803	40,977	803	13,659
803	13,659

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	190,086	190,086	190,086	190,086	6,862
6,862	6,862	6,862

Art Studios

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	8,589	11,657	8,589	11,657	6,446	8,747	6,446	8,747

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	216	0	216	0	37	0	37

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	34,760	34,760	34,760	34,760	2,736	2,736	2,736	2,736

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	7,838	7,838	7,838	7,838	617	617	617	617

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	140	420	69	207	69	138	69	138

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	103	103	103	103	15	15	15	15

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,607	4,821	803	2,410	803	1,607	803
1,607

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	9,106	9,106	9,106	9,106	711	711	711	711

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	NA	NA	333	333	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	NA	NA	772	772	515	515	515	515	257	257

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	NA	NA	228	228	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	NA	NA	441	441	441	441	441	441	441
441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	NA	NA	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	NA	NA	NA	NA	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26

Teaching Hospitals

Training	801,376	894,241	801,376	894,241	26,157	26,789	26,157	26,789	NA
NA	NA	NA

Travel	0	3,401	0	3,401	0	33	0	33	NA	NA	NA	NA

HWID	548,239	548,239	548,239	548,239	24,139	24,139	24,139	24,139	NA	NA
NA	NA

Labeling	123,630	123,630	123,630	123,630	5,443	5,443	5,443	5,443	NA	NA
NA	NA

Manifest Cost	140	7,142	69	3,512	140	280	69	138	NA	NA	NA	NA

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	1,290	1,290	1,290	1,290	64	64	64	64	NA	NA	NA
NA

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	81,953	803	40,977	1,607	3,214	803	1,607
NA	NA	NA	NA

Drum Disposal Cost	146,444	146,444	146,444	146,444	146,444	146,444
146,444	146,444	NA	NA	NA	NA

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	333	333	0	0	333	333	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

General Administration	772	772	515	515	772	772	515	515	NA	NA	NA	NA

Contingency Planning	228	228	0	0	228	228	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	NA	NA	NA
NA

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	NA	NA	NA	NA

Notification	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	NA	NA	NA	NA

1.  The very large and large model facilities represented in this table
are assumed to have more than 50 CU, non-profit research institute, and
very large teaching hospital laboratories and five studio laboratories,
as described in Section 4.

2.  Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the hazardous waste
that is commercial chemical product generated from one laboratory
clean-out per laboratory per year in determining generation status.
This may allow some facilities to reduce their reported generator status
to their typical generator status going from large quantity generator
(LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt
small quantity generator (CESQG).

NA = Not Applicable – The “very large” laboratory system size
category is only used as a model for teaching hospitals.  The “large
SQG” laboratory system size category was not used as a model for
teaching hospitals.

Table E-2b.  Estimated Final Rule College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institute, and Teaching Hospital

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Small Models, 2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs	CESQGs

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	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	Small	Small

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

Training	36,861	39,283	36,861	39,283	32,274	33,929	32,274	33,929	32,274
33,929

Travel	0	198	0	198	0	42	0	42	0	24

HWID	31,863	31,863	31,863	31,863	3,058	3,058	3,058	3,058	7,435	7,435

Labeling	7,185	7,185	7,185	7,185	689	689	689	689	1,677	1,677

Manifest Cost	140	420	69	207	69	138	69	138	69	138

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	94	94	94	94	16	16	16	16	19	19

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	4,821	803	2,410	803	1,607	803	1,607	803
1,607

Drum Disposal Cost	175,289	175,289	175,289	175,289	6,540	6,540	6,540
6,540	1,145	1,145

Art Studios

Training	1,445	1,956	1,445	1,956	1,445	1,956	1,445	1,956	714	970

Travel	0	27	0	27	0	7	0	7	0	4

HWID	4,345	4,345	4,345	4,345	483	483	483	483	1,352	1,352

Labeling	980	980	980	980	109	109	109	109	305	305

Manifest Cost	140	140	69	69	69	69	69	69	69	69

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	13	13	13	13	3	3	3	3	3	3

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	1,607	803	803	803	803	803	803	803	803

Drum Disposal Cost	23,903	23,903	23,903	23,903	1,033	1,033	1,033	1,033
208	208

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	333	333	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	772	772	515	515	515	515	257	257	257	257

Contingency Planning	228	228	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26

Teaching Hospitals	Very Small	Very Small

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	12,394	10,725	12,394	10,725	4,676	3,586

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	13	0	13	0	4

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,352	1,352	1,352	1,352	322	322

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	305	305	305	305	73	73

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	69	69	69	69	69	69

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	5	5	5	5	2	2

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	803	803	803	803	803	803

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	8,542	8,542	8,542	8,542	2,025	2,025

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	NA	NA	515	515	257	257	257	257

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	NA	NA	441	441	441	441	441	441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	NA	NA	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	NA	NA	NA	NA	26	26	26	26	26	26

1.  The small model facilities represented in this table are assumed to
have less than 50 CU or non-profit research institute laboratories, less
than five studio laboratories, six SQG teaching hospital laboratories,
and two CESQG teaching hospital laboratories, as described in Section 4.

2. Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the waste generated
from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in determining
generation status.  This may allow some facilities to reduce their
reported generator status to their typical generator status going from
large quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG
to conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).

NA = Not Applicable – The “small LQG” laboratory system size
category was not used as a model for teaching hospitals.

Table E-3a.  Estimated Incremental College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institute, and Teaching Hospital

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Very Large and Large Models,
2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to
CESQGs2

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/
CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA

	Very Large	Very Large	Very Large	Very Large	Large	Large	Large	Large
Large	Large	Large	Large

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	(5,626)	(1,125)	(5,626)	(1,125)	(450)	(90)	(450)	(90)

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	6,139	6,139	6,139	6,139	223	223	223	223

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	(1,680)	(71)	(5,310)	0	(275)	0	(275)

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	2,150	2,150	2,150	2,150	141	141
141	141

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	(19,283)	(803)	(60,260)	0	(3,214)
0	(3,214)

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Art Studios

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	(270)	(54)	(270)	(54)	(47)	(9)	(47)	(9)

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	294	294	294	294	23	23	23	23

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(71)	(214)	0	(69)	0	(69)

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	103	103	103	103	15	15	15	15

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(803)	(2,410)	0	(803)	0	(803)

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(333)	(333)	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0	(257)	(257)

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(228)	(228)	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	NA	NA	441	441	441	441	441	441	441
441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	NA	NA	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	NA	NA	NA	NA	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26

Teaching Hospitals

Training	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

Travel	(4,251)	(850)	(4,251)	(850)	(41)	(8)	(41)	(8)	NA	NA	NA	NA

HWID	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

Labeling	4,638	4,638	4,638	4,638	204	204	204	204	NA	NA	NA	NA

Manifest Cost	0	(1,680)	(71)	(5,310)	0	0	(71)	(142)	NA	NA	NA	NA

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	1,290	1,290	1,290	1,290	64	64	64	64	NA	NA	NA
NA

Drum Transportation Cost	0	(19,283)	(803)	(60,260)	0	0	(803)	(1,607)	NA
NA	NA	NA

Drum Disposal Cost	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	0	0	(333)	(333)	0	0	(333)	(333)	NA	NA	NA	NA

General Administration	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0	(257)	(257)	NA	NA	NA	NA

Contingency Planning	0	0	(228)	(228)	0	0	(228)	(228)	NA	NA	NA	NA

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	NA	NA	NA
NA

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	NA	NA	NA	NA

Notification	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	NA	NA	NA	NA

1.  The very large and large models represented in this table are
assumed to have more than 50 CU, non-profit research institute, and very
large teaching hospital laboratories and five studio laboratories, as
described in Section 4.

2.  Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the waste generated
from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in determining
generation status.  This may allow some facilities to reduce their
reported generator status to their typical generator status going from
large quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG
to conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).

NA = Not Applicable – The “very large” laboratory system size
category is only used as a model for teaching hospitals.  The “large
SQG” laboratory system size category was not used as a model for
teaching hospitals.

Table E-3b.  Estimated Incremental College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institute, and Teaching Hospital

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Small Models, 2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs	CESQGs

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	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	Small	Small

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

Training	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	(247)	(49)	(247)	(49)	(52)	(10)	(52)	(10)	(30)	(6)

HWID	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	270	270	270	270	26	26	26	26	63	63

Manifest Cost	0	0	(71)	(214)	0	(69)	0	(69)	34	69

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	94	94	94	94	16	16	16	16	19	19

Drum Transportation Cost	0	0	(803)	(2,410)	0	(803)	0	(803)	402	803

Drum Disposal Cost	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Art Studios

Training	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	(34)	(7)	(34)	(7)	(8)	(2)	(8)	(2)	(5)	(1)

HWID	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	37	37	37	37	4	4	4	4	11	11

Manifest Cost	0	0	(71)	(71)	0	0	0	0	34	34

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	13	13	13	13	3	3	3	3	3	3

Drum Transportation Cost	-	-	(803)	(803)	0	0	0	0	402	402

Drum Disposal Cost	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	0	0	(333)	(333)	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0

Contingency Planning	0	0	(228)	(228)	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26

Teaching Hospitals	Very Small	Very Small

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	(16)	(3)	(16)	(3)	(5)	(1)

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	11	11	11	11	3	3

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	34	34

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	5	5	5	5	2	2

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	402	402

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	NA	NA	441	441	441	441	441	441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	NA	NA	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	NA	NA	NA	NA	26	26	26	26	26	26

1.  The small model facilities represented in this table are assumed to
have less than 50 CU or non-profit research institute laboratories, less
than five studio laboratories, six SQG teaching hospital laboratories,
and two CESQG teaching hospital laboratories, as described in Section 4.

2.  Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the waste generated
from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in determining
generation status.  This may allow some facilities to reduce their
reported generator status to their typical generator status going from
large quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG
to conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).

NA = Not Applicable – The “small LQG” laboratory system size
category was not used as a model for teaching hospitals.

APPENDIX F:

DEFINITIONS

Accumulation	A site that does not hold RCRA Interim Status or a RCRA
permit may accumulate hazardous waste for a short period of time before
shipping it off site. The waste must be accumulated in either tanks or
containers; it may not be accumulated in surface impoundments.

Generators of more than 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs) of hazardous waste per
month may accumulate their waste for up to 90 days before shipping it
off site. Generators of 100 kg (220 lbs) to 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs) of
hazardous waste per month may accumulate their waste for up to 180 days
before shipping it off site. If the nearest treatment, storage,
disposal, or recycling facility to which they can send their waste is
more than 200 miles away, they may accumulate their waste for 270 days.
See 40 CFR 262.34.

Authorized State	A State that has obtained authorization from the EPA to
direct its own RCRA program.

Campus	All the sections of the college or university (or other eligible
academic entity) even though they may have separate EPA Identification
Numbers or are separated by public roads.

Central Accumulation Area (CAA)	An on-site hazardous waste accumulation
area subject to either § 262.34(a) (or 262.34(j) and (k) for
Performance Track members) of this part (large quantity generators); or
§ 262.34(d)-(f) of this part (small quantity generators). A central
accumulation area at an eligible academic entity that chooses to be
subject to this subpart must also comply with § 262.211 when
accumulating unwanted material and/or hazardous waste.

College/University (C/U)	A private or public, post-secondary,
degree-granting, academic institution, that is accredited by an
accrediting agency listed annually by the U.S. Department of Education.

Eligible Academic Entities	A college or university, or a non-profit
research institute that is owned by or has a formal written affiliation
agreement with a college or university, or a teaching hospital that is
owned by or has a formal written affiliation agreement with a college or
university.

Formal Written Affiliation Agreement	For a non-profit research institute
it means a written document that establishes a relationship between
institutions for the purposes of research and/or education and is signed
by authorized representatives, as defined by § 260.10, from each
institution.  A relationship on a project-by-project or grant-by-grant
basis is not considered a formal written affiliation agreement.  A
formal written affiliation agreement for a teaching hospital means a
master affiliation agreement and program letter of agreement, as defined
by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, with an
accredited medical program or medical school.

Laboratory	An area owned by an eligible academic entity where relatively
small quantities of chemicals and other substances are used on a
non-production basis for teaching or research (or diagnostic purposes at
a teaching hospital) and are stored and used in containers that are
easily manipulated by one person.  Photo laboratories, art studios, and
field laboratories are considered laboratories.  Areas such as chemical
stockrooms and preparatory laboratories that provide a support function
to teaching or research laboratories (or diagnostic laboratories at
teaching hospitals) are also considered laboratories.

Laboratory Clean-out	An evaluation of the inventory of chemicals and
other materials in a laboratory that are no longer needed or that have
expired and the subsequent removal of those chemicals or other unwanted
materials from the laboratory. A clean-out may occur for several
reasons. It may be on a routine basis (e.g., at the end of a semester or
academic year) or as a result of a renovation, relocation, or change in
laboratory supervisor/occupant. A regularly scheduled removal of
unwanted material as required by § 262.208 does not qualify as a
laboratory clean-out.

Laboratory Worker	A person who handles chemicals and/or unwanted
material in a laboratory and may include, but is not limited to,
faculty, staff, post-doctoral fellows, interns, researchers,
technicians, supervisors/managers, and principal investigators. A person
does not need to be paid or otherwise compensated for his/her work in
the laboratory to be considered a laboratory worker. Undergraduate and
graduate students in a supervised classroom setting are not laboratory
workers.

Manifest	The shipped document EPA form 8700-22 and, if necessary, Form
8700-22A, originated and signed by a generator in accordance with the
instructions included in the appendix to 40 CFR Part 262. The
“cradle-to-grave” paperwork must accompany a shipment of hazardous
waste as it moves from the generator to the transporter and eventually
to the hazardous waste management facility.

Non-Profit Research Institute	An organization that conducts research as
its primary function and files as a non-profit organization under the
tax code of 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3).

On-site	RCRA 40 CFR Part 260.10 defines, “on-site” to mean the same
or geographically contiguous property which may be divided by public or
private right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the
properties is at a cross-roads intersection, and access is by crossing
as opposed to going along, the right-of-way.  Non-contiguous properties
owned by the same person, but connected by a right-of-way which he
controls and to which the public does not have access, is also
considered on-site property.

Teaching Hospitals	A hospital that trains students to become physicians,
nurses or other health or laboratory personnel.

Unwanted Material	Any chemical, mixtures of chemicals, products of
experiments or other material from a laboratory that is no longer
needed, wanted or usable in the laboratory and that is destined for
hazardous waste determination by a trained professional. Unwanted
materials include reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials and
materials that may eventually be determined not to be solid waste
pursuant to § 261.2, or a hazardous waste pursuant to § 261.3.  If an
eligible academic entity elects to use another equally effective term in
lieu of “unwanted material,” as allowed by § 262.206(a)(1)(i), the
equally effective term has the same meaning and is subject to the same
requirements as “unwanted material” under this subpart.

Working Container	A small container (i.e., two gallons or less) that is
in use at a laboratory bench, hood, or other work station, to collect
unwanted material from a laboratory experiment or procedure.

 We assume that only eligible academic entities that experience cost
savings by opting into Subpart K will do so.  The 112 eligible academic
entities estimated to participate in Subpart K will see cost savings
based on this analysis.

 U.S. EPA, "Report to Congress: Management of Hazardous Waste from
Educational Institutions," April 1989.

 Satellite accumulation areas are those places where wastes are
generated and where those wastes must initially accumulate prior to
removal to a central area.  The satellite accumulation provisions allow
generators to accumulate up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or 1 quart
of acute hazardous waste) with fewer requirements than for central
accumulation areas, provided the generator complies with the
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34(c)

 Although OSHA regulation 1910.1450 requires training for laboratory
employees that manage or handle hazardous materials, this training is
not necessarily sufficient preparation for making RCRA hazardous waste
determinations.

 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.

 National Association of College and University Business Officers,
NACUBO 2005 hazardous waste survey,
http://www.nacubo.org/documents/business_topics/HazardousWasteSurveyResu
lts.pdf.

 The Agency is referring to chemicals or other materials that are no
longer needed, wanted or usable in the laboratory 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 specific source codes that EPA used to identify wastes that were
most likely generated in laboratories include G11 (Discarding
off-specification or out-of-date chemicals or products),  G22
(Laboratory analytical wastes), and G09 (Other production or
service-related processes from which the waste is a direct outflow or
result).  Waste streams with source code G09 were considered a
laboratory hazardous waste only if the waste form codes indicated that
they were lab backs (i.e., form code W001 or W004).

 For a full explanation of the methodology used to determine hazardous
waste totals for colleges and universities, teaching hospitals and
non-profit research institutes, see the memo entitled, Lab Rule Data
Analyses, from ICF International to Patricia Mercer, May 1, 2008; and
for hazardous waste information for LQG government research laboratories
and commercial R&D laboratories see the memo entitled, Final Analyses of
Eligible academic entity Laboratory Hazardous Waste, from ICF
International to Patricia Mercer, August 17, 2007.

 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, October 4, 1993;
Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003.

  In this analysis, photo labs are contemplated primarily within the
categories for colleges and universities, and vocational schools.

 We summarize the approach here, and refer readers interested in a more
detailed discussion of procedures to: ICF International. May 1, 2008.
“Phase I Lab Rule Data Analysis”. Memorandum from Maribelle
Rodriguez and Earl Harris, ICF to Patricia Mercer, EPA; and ICF
International. May 1, 2008. “Phase II Lab Rule Data Analysis”.
Memorandum from Maribelle Rodriguez, Earl Harris, Jonathan Cohen, and
Nina Perlman, ICF to Patricia Mercer, EPA.

  Under the proposed rule, CESQGs were not eligible and therefore no
range of lab waste was developed for CESQGs; however, CESQGs are
eligible under the final rule.

 Note that G09 was only considered a laboratory hazardous waste if the
waste form codes indicated lab packs (i.e., W001 or W004)

  Specifically, the Agency assumes that only states with historically
high rates of RCRA rule change adoptions (equal to or greater than 85
percent), will codify the rule, allowing eligible academic entities in
those states to adopt the rule. States that adopt at least 85 percent of
EPA rules were determined based on state rule adoption data from the
StATS data system on March 31, 2005.

  Note that photo labs are embedded, where applicable, in the lab counts
for CUs, vocational schools, teaching hospitals, and non-profit research
institutes.

 These size categories are generally reflective of a CU’s hazardous
waste generator status.  For example, CESQGs (96%) and SQG CUs (76%)
typically have fewer than 50 labs and LQG CUs (85%) typically have
greater than 50 labs.

  These size categories are generally reflective of a CU’s hazardous
waste generator status because CESQG (87%) and SQG CUs (68%) typically
have fewer than 5 studios and LQG CUs (63%) typically have greater than
5 studios.

 The Agency suspects the percentage of CESQGs having a CAA (46 percent)
is likely high, and may be due to the survey including CAAs that are
off-site.  In such instances, we would consider the CESQG to not have a
CAA.  Nonetheless, we utilize this percentage for categorization
purposes, as no other relevant data were identified.

 As noted, for modeling purposes, non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and number of laboratories.

  Note that we do not disaggregate the number of labs by CAA operation
status, as it is not relevant to the analysis.

 Email EPA Laboratory Waste Rule to Craig Simons, DPRA Incorporate, from
Mr. Eric Talley, Cornell University, May 19, 2008.

 Email 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 eligible academic entities have different
practices regarding the management of generated wastes; however, no data
are available to assess what practices are most common.