varies
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                    Varies
                                    $0.00
                                    $0.00
                                    varies
                                   2,789.16
                                  $145,281.84
TOTAL
                                     0.00
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                    Varies
                                    $0.00
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                   35,813.07
                                 $1,806,662.89
a  Exhibit contains rounding error.

EXHIBIT 2

GENERATOR STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO LABORATORIES OWNED BY ELIGIBLE ACADEMIC ENTITIES [a]

ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY HOUR AND COST BURDEN

                        Hours and Costs per Respondent
                             Total Hours and Costs

                                     Legal
                                    Manager
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
                            Agency
Hours/ Activity
                             Labor
Cost/
Activity
                             Capital/
Startup
Cost
                            O&M
Cost/ Activity
                          Number of Agency Activities
                               Total Hours/
Year
                               Total
Cost/
Year
INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY
                                   $71.77/Hr
                                   $77.82/Hr
                                   $62.93/Hr
                                   $27.21/Hr

NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH SUBPART K AND RECORDKEEPING OF AGREEMENTS (40 CFR 262.203)
Review and process Site Identification Forms
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.25
                                     0.50
                                     0.75
                                    $29.34
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      44
                                      33
                                   $1,290.96
Subtotal
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.25
                                     0.50
                                     0.75
                                    $29.34
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      44
                                      33
                                   $1,290.96
NOTIFICATION OF WITHDRAWAL FROM SUBPART K (40 CFR 262.204)
Review and process Site Identification Forms
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.25
                                     0.50
                                     0.75
                                    $29.34
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                       1
                                     0.75
                                    $29.34
Subtotal
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.25
                                     0.50
                                     0.75
                                    $29.34
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                       1
                                     0.75
                                    $29.34
TOTAL
                                     0.00
                                     0.00
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                    varies
                                    $0.00
                                    $0.00
                                    varies
                                     33.75
                                   $1,320.30
a  Exhibit contains rounding error.

	ATTACHMENT 1

	INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST 2317.03
	BURDEN ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY

                                 Introduction

	The Academic Laboratories Rule of 40 CFR part 262 subpart K, (also known as the "Labs Rule" or "Subpart K") allows eligible academic entities to opt into an alternative set of generator regulations in lieu of the standard set of RCRA generator regulations.  Opting into Subpart K entails some amount of burden for those choosing to opt in.  In accordance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (as amended), EPA must estimate respondent burden associated with all regulatory activities.  Once burden estimates are developed, EPA submits an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.  This document describes the methodology for updated burden estimates for the renewal of the ICR covering the regulatory activities cited above. For this ICR renewal, EPA consulted with seven individuals about a total of ten different institutions. EPA estimated the burden within this ICR based on these new consultations and consultations conducted during the previous ICR (2317.02).

            Summary of Consultations for this ICR Renewal (2317.03)

	June Brock-Carroll<EMAIL_ADDRESS>864-633-6357) is the Hazardous Materials Manager for Clemson University. She confirmed that three Clemson University facilities have opted into Subpart K (2 CESQGs and a SQG). Both of her CESQG facilities have about 2 to 10 labs and each facility collected approximately 20 five gallon containers each year. Both facilities do not have central accumulation areas. Her SQG facility has a central accumulation area and collects about 180 five gallon containers annually from 20 labs. She indicated that each label only required a few minutes complete. She estimates that all Clemson facilities required a week to develop their laboratory management plan (LMP). She indicated that all facilities also conducted clean outs but there was no effect on their generator status.

	Jeremy Kuhar<EMAIL_ADDRESS>717-337-6261) is an instructor, a Chemical Hygiene Officer, and Lab Coordinator for Gettysburg College.  He confirmed that Gettysburg College opted into Subpart K and indicated that his school operates as a small quantity generator (SQG).  His institution has approximately 65 labs and a central accumulation area.  He estimates the labs at the school generate 180 five gallon containers of hazardous waste per year. He indicated that it only took 25 seconds to fill out a label. When he developed the school's laboratory management plan (LMP), he incorporated it into the school's chemical hygiene plan (CHP), a plan that is required by OSHA.  He estimates that developing both plans (and reading the Federal Register notice) took 25 hours.  He indicated that it take 2 to 3 hours of annual review of the LMP and 5 hours are required if an overhaul of the plan is needed. His school has conducted laboratory clean-outs but it did not affect the school's hazardous waste generator status.

	Jerry Goodwin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>314-516-6363) is the Director of Environmental Health and Safety for University of Missouri, St. Louis (UMSL). He indicated that UMSL is a SQG and has opted into Subpart K. His facility has about 170 labs that produce 300 to 800 twenty liter containers annually. It took him less than 5 minutes to create labels. He indicated that it took less than a month to develop the LMP. He has participated in lab clean outs for his facility but they did not change his generator status.

	Neil Day<EMAIL_ADDRESS>307-766-3698) is a Hazardous Waste Supervisor for the University of Wyoming. He indicated that his school is a SQG and has opted into subpart K. He indicated that his school produced 43,504 lbs of waste.

	Bruce Backus<EMAIL_ADDRESS>314-935-9882) is the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Environmental Health and Safety at Washington University in St. Louis. He has two facilities that have opted into Subpart K, Danforth Campus and School of Medicine. He indicated that both facilities are LQGs and the school contains a total of 3100 lab rooms that have central accumulation areas. Each lab has 5 to 7 rooms. Danforth Campus produced 7091 containers and School of Medicine produced 15750 containers. He mentioned that container sizes ranged from 1 ounce to 5 gallons and labeling for each container required 1 to 3 minutes. Both facilities required 6 months to develop the LMP in conjunction with OSHAs chemical hygiene plan. Bruce estimated that it took 24 hours to update the plans after their initial development. He has also conducted lab clean outs for his two facilities but they did not change their generator status.

 	Jeff Rogers<EMAIL_ADDRESS>802-656-0767) is the Environmental Compliance Manager for the University of Vermont. Jeff indicated that his institution is a LQG and has a central accumulation area. His institution has 500 labs that produce 4490 containers of waste. Each container is between 1 and 20 liters. It takes him 3 to 5 minutes to fill out a label for a container. Jeff indicated that it required 20 hours of staff time and 4 hours of manager time to complete the LMP and then about an additional 6 hours to update the plan. His school did perform lab clean outs but they did not change its generator status.

	Michael Webb<EMAIL_ADDRESS>501-686-6958) is the Environmental Programs Manager for the University of Arkansas for Medical Science. Michael indicated that his institution is a LQG and has a central accumulation area. He has 420 labs that produced 158 drums (55 gallons) of waste. It took Michael 5 minutes to fill out a label for a container and it required his staff one week to complete the LMP. His school did perform lab clean outs but they did not change its generator status.

          Summary of Consultations from Previous ICR Renewal 2317.02

	Aisha Holloman<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Environmental Health & Safety Manager at Gateway University Research Park, a new non-profit research institute that opened in December 2011.  She confirmed that the research park is an SQG that has opted into Subpart K.  The research park has 15 labs and two central accumulation areas.  Given that the research park is so new, she does not have an estimate of the number of containers of hazardous waste that each lab generates per year and she has not had the need to conduct laboratory clean-outs.  She estimates that it took 60 hours to develop the LMP and the CHP together.

	Jeremy Kuhar<EMAIL_ADDRESS>717-337-6261) wears several hats at Gettysburg College; he is an instructor, Chemical Hygiene Officer, and Lab Coordinator.  He confirmed that Gettysburg College opted into Subpart K.  He indicated that although Gettysburg College probably qualifies as a conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG), the school notified and operates as a RCRA small quantity generator (SQG), just to be on the safe side.  His institution has approximately 60 labs and a central accumulation area.  He estimates the labs at the school generate 80 - 100 containers of hazardous waste per year. When he developed the school's laboratory management plan (LMP), he incorporated it into the school's chemical hygiene plan (CHP), a plan that is required by OSHA.  He estimates that developing both plans (and reading the Federal Register notice) took 100 - 150 hours. His school has not conducted any "documented" laboratory clean-outs since he did not anticipate that it would affect the school's hazardous waste generator status.

	Eric Engelberger<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Safety Officer at Southern Arkansas University.  He confirmed that Souther Arkansas University has opted into Subpart K and that his school is a SQG.  His school has 21-22 labs and a central accumulation area.  He said that the laboratories do not generate containers of hazardous waste except during laboratory clean-outs.  He said that the Science Department is currently writing the LMP and incorporating it into the school's OSHA CHP.  He estimates that it will take 80 hours to develop the LMP and the CHP together.  His school has conducted laboratory clean-outs when they moved into a new science building.  Based on the amount of hazardous waste generated during the laboratory clean-out, the school would have become an LQG if it had not been operating under Subpart K, but it stayed an SQG.

	Jen Stones<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Hazardous Materials Manager at the University of Utah.  She confirmed that her school is an LQG that has opted into Subpart K.  Her school has 800-900 labs and a central accumulations area.  She estimates that the laboratories generate 22-28 55-gallons drums of hazardous waste per month.  She developed the LMP as a separate document and estimates that it took 40 hours to write.  Her school has not conducted laboratory clean-outs.

	Craig Barnhart<EMAIL_ADDRESS>works at Butler University.  He confirmed that his school has opted into Subpart K and is an SQG.  The school has 65-70 laboratories and a central accumulation area.  He estimates that is laboratories generate 3500-4000 pounds of hazardous waste per year.  Working in tandem with another person, he estimates that it took 2-3 full working days to develop the LMP, which is a separate document.  His school has not conducted any laboratory clean-outs.

	Victoria Justus<PHONE_NUMBER>) is a consultant with WasteStrategies.  She works with colleges and universities, assisting them with their environmental compliance, which sometimes includes opting into Subpart K.  She discussed three institutions with us:  Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE), Lakewood College, and Philadelphia University (which is in the process of opting in).

      Victoria confirmed that MSOE opted into Subpart K for two sites  -  one is CESQG and one is an SQG.  The CESQG site has 9-10 labs and no central accumulation area while the SQG site has 50-65 laboratories and a central accumulation area.  The CESQG site generates 4-5 drums of hazardous waste per year, while the SQG site generates 400-450 containers per year (1 liter  -  5 gallon containers).  She developed one LMP for both MSOE sites as part of OSHA's CHP and estimates it took 100 hours.  MSOE has conducted laboratory clean-outs and would have become an LQG if it had not been operating under Subpart K; but remained CESQG and SQG.

      Victoria confirmed that Lakewood College opted into Subpart K and is an SQG.  The school has 20-25 labs and no central accumulation area.  The school's laboratories generate 150-200 containers of hazardous waste per year.  She does not have an estimate of the number of hours it took to develop the school's LMP.  The school has not conducted any laboratory clean-outs.

      Victoria informed us that Philadelphia University, an SQG, is in the process of opting into Subpart K.  The school has 40-45 laboratories, with 30 more opening over the next 2 years.  The school does not have a central accumulation area currently, but plans to establish one.  She estimates that the school's laboratories generate 12-15 drums and 300 containers of hazardous waste per year.  The school's LMP is currently under development and they have not yet conducted any laboratory clean-outs.

                              Estimates of Burden

	The estimates of burden associated with all regulatory activities identified in the Academic Laboratories ICR are updated based on the information obtained from the 13 consultations described above.  If no information was obtained or available on an activity, it was assumed that the burden information contained in the previous pertinent ICRs (2317.01 and 2317.02) did not change for that activity.  For this renewal, it was assumed that all LQGs have a central accumulation area because the waste quantities generated necessitate one and that no CESQGs have a central accumulation area, because the regulations do not provide for one.

	In several cases during the consultations, a range was given for the number of laboratories at an eligible academic entity.  In these cases, the average was taken to establish the number of laboratories.  There are 4 facilities that are LQGs and each facility over 400 labs and a central accumulation area. Eleven facilities are SQGs.  Eight of the SQG sites have central accumulation areas, five of which have more than 50 laboratories, three of which of less than 50 laboratories.  Two of the SQG sites do not have central accumulation areas and both have fewer than 50 laboratories so they are considered small SQGs. One facility reported as a SQG but did not report the number of labs or if it had an accumulation area so it was excluded. Three of the sites consulted were a CESQG.  They were considered as small CESQGs since they did not have a central accumulation areas and each facility had 10 laboratories or less. For categories of schools and hospitals not represented via consultations, the number of laboratories is assumed to be the same as in the previous pertinent ICR.

	When asked how many containers of hazardous waste are generated in the laboratories each year, respondents provided answers in ranges and in various units.  For example, the University of Utah said they generate 22-28 55-gallon drums per month.  To arrive at a number of containers when a range was given, the average was taken to establish the number of containers.  To convert 55-gallon drums to a number of containers per year, we assumed that the average container size for collecting hazardous waste in a laboratory is 1 gallon.  Therefore, each 55-gallon drum generated equates to 55 1-gallons containers. If liters or ounces of waste was reported by the consultant then it was converted to gallons. If a consultant report their amount of waste in pounds, then it was assumed that each 1-gallon container weighs 8 pounds (the approximate weight of a gallon of water).  Gateway University Research Park indicated that since the facility just opened, it does not have an estimate of the number of containers of hazardous waste its laboratories generate, so this was excluded.  Southern Arkansas University stated that it does not routinely generate containers of hazardous waste except during laboratory clean-outs, so the number of containers per year is assumed to be zero.

	When calculating the average number of hours that it took an eligible academic entity to develop its LMP, the following assumptions were made.  If an answer was provided that was a range, an average was taken to establish the number of hours.  Some respondents reported their answer in "working days" or simply in terms of a "week." It was assumed that a working day was eight hours and a week is 40 hours.  If a respondent indicated that the LMP was developed as part of updating its OSHA CHP, the number of hours reported was divided by two; half the time was assumed to be taken to develop or update the CHP and half the time was assumed to be taken to develop the LMP.  Most respondents indicated that they wrote the LMP and management reviewed it.  It was assumed that the bulk of the time was spend writing the LMP (7/8 of the time) and a much small portion was spent reviewing it (1/8 of the time).  Jeremy Kuhar of Gettysburg College said that his time estimate included reading the Federal Register notice, so two hours was subtracted to account for this.  The number of hours for reviewing and making revisions to the LMP as well as making it available to others is assumed to be the same as in the previous pertinent ICR.

                                 ATTACHMENT 2

                       Summary of Universe Calculations

      The Academic Laboratories Rule (the "Labs Rule" or "Subpart K") was finalized in December 2008.  It is optional for eligible academic entities to use the Labs Rule in lieu of standard RCRA generator regulations.  Since the rule became effective, 92 eligible academic entities have opted into the rule, according to the data in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo) national database.  The generator status of each of the 92 facilities was also determined using data available in RCRAInfo.  Two of the eligible academic entities did not have a generator status listed in RCRAInfo.  These two were eliminated from the universe calculations.  Furthermore, two entities have withdrawn from Subpart K since the introduction of this rule in December 2008 and were not included when calculating the current universe.

Eligible Academic Entities (EAEs) Opting into Subpart K, cumulative by year

                                     Year
                          EAEs opting in (cumulative)
                                     2009
                                       1
                                     2010
                                       8
                                     2011
                                      17
                                     2012
                                      44
                                     2013
                                      68
                                     2014
                                      90
                                     2015
                         92* (as of October 15, 2015)
                          93 (projected for all 2015)

Eligible Academic Entities (EAEs) Opting into Subpart K, by year:

                                     Year
                           EAEs opting in each year
                                     2009
                                       1
                                     2010
                                       7
                                     2011
                                       9
                                     2012
                                      27
                                     2013
                                      24
                                     2014
                                      22
                                     2015
                           2 (as of August 13, 2015)
                         3 (projected for all of 2015)

Generator Status of Eligible Academic Entities (EAEs) that have Opted into Subpart K:

                               Generator Status
                                Number of EAEs
                             Percent of total EAEs
                                      LQG
                                      41
                                      45%
                                      SQG
                                      26
                                      28%
                                     CESQG
                                      25
                                      27%
                                     Total
                                      92
                                     100%

      Since the data are not complete for 2015, we must project how many schools will opt into Subpart K for the remainder of 2015.  If we project the same rate of adoption for the remainder of 2015, we should expect to see 1 more eligible academic entities opt in, for a total of 3 eligible academic entities opting in during 2015.

      Excluding 2009, since the rule was new and states were just beginning to adopt the Labs Rule, the average number of eligible academic entities that have opted in during the six year period of 2010-2015, is 13.3 per year.  Two entities have withdrawn from Subpart K during the six year period, averaging 0.3 per year.  If we project the same rate of adoption and withdrawal rate over the next three years (2016-2018), approximately 40 (=13.3*3) new eligible academic entities will have adopted and 1 (=0.3*3) will have withdrawn by the end of the next three year period. Overall, at the end of 2018 it is projected that the number of entities that have opted into Subpart K will increase by 39.

      Adding the 39 new eligible academic entities to the projected 1 more for 2015, we estimate that there will be 40 new eligible academic entities using Subpart K.  If we add this to the existing 92 existing eligible academic entities already using the rule, we project a total of 132 eligible academic entities will have adopted by the end of the 2018.

      If we project that the 40 new eligible academic entities will have the same proportion of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs, then we would expect to see the following:

Generator Status of Eligible Academic Entities (EAEs) that Will Opt into Subpart K:

                               Generator Status
                         Projected Number of New EAEs
                        Projected Number of total EAEs
                                      LQG
                                      18
                                      60
                                      SQG
                                      11
                                      37
                                     CESQG
                                      10
                                      35
                                     Total
                                      39
                                      132

	When eligible academic entities opt into Subpart K they must notify as either a college/university (C/U), a non-profit research institute (NPRI), a teaching hospital, or any combination of the above.  Using data from RCRAInfo, the type of eligible academic entity was determined for each eligible academic entity that has opted into Subpart K.  Then the percentage of each type of eligible academic entity was calculated by generator status.  These same percentages were used to project the proportion of the types of eligible academic entities that will opt into Subpart K over the next three year period.  Eligible academic entities that notified as both a college/university and a teaching hospital were counted as college/universities since based on professional experience, the number of teaching and research laboratories at that part of the institution usually outnumber those found at the teaching hospital.  This information was used to update Table 1 of the Supporting Statement for the ICR renewal.


[Federal Register: September 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53420]
[DOCID:fr16se08-44]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool
Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT) Stakeholder Policy
Committee Meeting

September 10, 2008.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of its staff may attend the meeting noted below. Their
attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
    ICT Stakeholder Policy Committee Meeting: September 23, 2008 (9
a.m.-3 p.m. CST), Sheraton North Houston Hotel, 15700 John F. Kennedy
Blvd., Houston, TX 77032.
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:
Docket No. EL07-52--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy
Services, Inc.
Docket No. OA07-32--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER05-1065--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL00-66--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy.
Docket No. EL95-33--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy.
Docket No. ER00-2854--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy.
Docket No. EL05-15--Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Corp. v. Entergy
Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-844--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL01-88--Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy.
Docket No. ER03-583--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-879--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER01-2214--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-59--ConocoPhillips v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-60--Union Electric v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-92--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-75--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-59--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER07-1252--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL03-230--ExxonMobil v. Entergy.
Docket No. ER08-774--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1006--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1078--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1079--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1056--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1057--Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-682--Entergy Services. Inc.
Docket No. EL08-72--NRG Energy, Inc. v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-51--LPSC v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-84--AEEC v. Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-513--Entergy Services, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21581 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P