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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(<= 50labs,<=

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

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

(<= 50labs,<=

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

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

(<= 50labs,<=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(<= 50labs,<

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

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

(<= 50labs,<

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

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

(<= 50labs,<

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but must be associated with the container.

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

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

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

° Requires training for students in:

labeling, container mgmt., and emergency resp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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