SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other
Impacts for the Revised Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste; Subpart K - Laboratories Owned by Eligible Academic Entities

Final Rule

Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division

Office of Solid Waste

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

June 30, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Agency recognizes Industrial Economics, Incorporated (Cambridge,
Massachusetts) and DPRA Incorporated (St. Paul, Minnesota) for the
overall organization and development of this report.  DPRA Inc.
developed the methodology, database, and analytical model that allowed
for the comprehensive analyses of the regulatory scenarios presented in
this report.  Rachel Alford, Lyn D. Luben, Jan Young, Jessica Biegelson,
Kristin Fitzgerald, and Greg Helms of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, provided guidance and review.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1

1.1  Introduction	1

1.2  Methodology	2

1.3  Results	3

1.4  Other Regulatory Issues	4

2.0  BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS	6

2.1  Background and Need For Regulation	6

2.2  Summary of the Final Rule	8

2.3  Alternative Options Analyzed	15

2.4  Public Comments Relevant to EPA’s Economic Analysis of the
Proposed Rule	18

2.5  Report Organization	19

3.0  ELIGIBLE ACADEMIC ENTITIES	20

3.1  Industry Classification of Eligible Academic Entities	20

3.2  Universe of Eligible Academic Entities and their Laboratory
Hazardous Waste	20

3.3  Scaled Universe of Eligible Academic Entities in States Assumed to
Adopt

       The Regulation	23

3.4  Average Revenues of Eligible Academic Entities	26

3.5  Limitations	26

4.0  MODEL FACILITY ASSUMPTIONS AND UNIT COST ESTIMATES	28

4.1  Model Facility Categorization	28

4.2  Laboratory Hazardous Waste Operations	35

4.3  Containers Generated Per Laboratory	41

4.4  Unit Cost Estimates	42

4.5  Limitations	57

5.0  COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS	59

5.1  Baseline, Final Rule, and Incremental Costs for Model Facilities	59

5.2  Aggregate Impacts	63

5.3  Eligible Academic Entity Average Cost Impacts as a Percent of

       Average Revenue	66

5.4  Sensitivity Analysis:  Impacts if the Final Rule is Adopted by All
Eligible

       Academic Entities	66

5.5  Sensitivity Analysis:  Aggregate Cost Impacts Under Alternative

       Options A and B	69

5.6  Impacts on State Governments	74

6.0  QUALITATIVE BENEFITS	76

7.0  OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS	77

7.1  Executive Order 12866 – Regulatory Planning and Review	 78

7.2  Regulatory Flexibility Act	78

7.3   Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice	79

7.4  Executive Order 13045 – Protection of Children from Environmental

       Health Risks and Safety Risks	79

7.5  Executive Order 12630 – Regulatory Takings	80

7.6  Joint Impacts of Rules	80

7.7  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act	80

7.8  Executive Order 13132 – Federalism	81

7.9  Executive Order 13175 – Tribalism	82

7.10  Executive Order 13211 – Energy Effects	82

7.11  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act	83

REFERENCES	84

Appendix A:  Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis	A-1

Appendix B:  Calculation of the Annual Number of Waste Containers	B-1

Appendix C:  Labor Rates and Annualization Methodology for Before-Tax

                      Compliance Costs	C-1

Appendix D:  Training Cost Estimates	D-1

Appendix E:  Detailed Model Facility Cost Estimates	E-1

Appendix F:  Definitions	F-1

List of Acronyms

BMPs	Best Management Practices

BR	Biennial Report

CAA 	Central Accumulation Area

CESQG  	Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

CFR	Code of Federal Regulations

CRF  	Capital recovery factor

CSHEMA	Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association

CUs  	Colleges and Universities

EA  	Economic Assessment

EH&S 	Environmental Health and Safety

FR  	Federal Register

GDP  	Gross Domestic Product

HSWA 	Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

HW  	Hazardous Waste

HWID  	Hazardous Waste Identification

ICR	Information Collection Request

LDR	Land Disposal Restrictions

LMP	Laboratory Management Plan

LQG	Large Quantity Generator

NA  	Not Applicable

NACUBO  	National Association of College and University Business
Officers

NAICS	North American Industry Classification System

OMB	Office of Management and Budget

OSHA	Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PRA	Paperwork Reduction Act

Project XL	eXcellence and Leadership

R&D	Research and Development

RACER  	Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements System

RCRA 	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFA  	Regulatory Flexibility Act

SAA  	Satellite Accumulation Area

SQG  	Small Quantity Generator

SWDA 	Solid Waste Disposal Act

TSDF 	Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility

UMRA

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

USDC	United States Department of Commerce

USDL  	United States Department of Labor

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Under the authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1970, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the generation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.  The regulations
governing the generation of hazardous waste, which are codified at 40
CFR 262, were developed primarily to address industrial processes.  In
2006, EPA proposed and sought comment on new regulations pertaining to
the generation of hazardous waste by laboratories at colleges and
universities.  The purpose of the proposed rule was to establish an
alternative set of requirements that would be better suited to the
specific circumstances at these laboratories, while at the same time
promoting environmental protection and public health through safer
hazardous waste management.  EPA's proposal requested comments on
various aspects of the rule, including the types of facilities to which
the rule should apply.

EPA is now promulgating the final rule.  In response to comments
received on the proposed rule, the Agency has extended the scope of the
final rule to the generation of hazardous waste in laboratories owned by
a broader range of academic entities, including colleges and
universities and teaching hospitals and non-profit research institutes
that are either owned by or formally affiliated with a college or
university.  Collectively, these three types of institutions are called
"eligible academic entities."  The major provisions of the final rule,
which will be codified as 40 CFR 262, Subpart K, include:

increased flexibility for eligible academic entities, enabling them to
make the hazardous waste (HW) determination at another location and a
later time than the point of generation for unwanted materials generated
in laboratories;

additional performance-based standards for unwanted materials
accumulation, container management, training of personnel, and labeling
of containers prior and subsequent to HW determination;

a requirement that eligible academic entities develop a laboratory
management plan (LMP) that specifies how they will comply with the
performance-based standards; and

encouragement of more frequent laboratory clean-outs with provisions for
the exclusion of hazardous waste that is unused commercial chemical
products (e.g., acutely hazardous wastes) in determining RCRA generator
status, when conducting a clean-out.

The final rule establishes Subpart K as an alternative set of generator
requirements that EPA considers to be equally as stringent as existing
requirements.  States with authority to administer the RCRA program may
adopt the rule or continue to rely on existing rules.  In states that
adopt the rule (or in states that do not have the authority to
administer the RCRA program), eligible academic entities would have the
option of opting into regulation under Subpart K or continuing to comply
with existing requirements for hazardous waste generators.

This Economic Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential impacts of EPA’s
final rule.  The analysis was conducted pursuant to the requirements of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by
Executive Order 13258 (68 FR 9385, February 28, 2002).  In addition to
analyzing the costs, benefits, and other impacts of the final rule, the
analysis considers the impacts of two regulatory alternatives that were
part of the proposed rule economic analysis but are no longer options
under the final rule, identified as Option A and Option B.  We provide
estimates for these options to demonstrate how changes in scope and
methodology affect their costs.  Options A and B were useful in helping
the Agency develop the final rule but are no longer under consideration.

Methodology

The final rule may have a number of impacts on eligible academic
entities.  To estimate these impacts, the analysis employs the following
approach.

First, using data from EPA's 2005 National Biennial Report database and
other sources, the analysis estimates the number of eligible academic
entities that generate laboratory hazardous wastes and may be affected
by the final rule.  The estimated 1,580 potentially affected entities
include 1,256 colleges and universities, 263 teaching hospitals, and 61
non-profit research institutes.  Of this total, 397 are large quantity
generators (LQGs), 759 are small quantity generators (SQGs), and the
remaining 424 are conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs).  These entities generate an estimated 9,136 tons of laboratory
hazardous waste each year.

Second, the analysis assumes that states which have adopted at least 85
percent of RCRA rule changes over a 5 year period will adopt EPA's final
rule.  Based on this assumption, 673 eligible academic entities in 29
states and Puerto Rico will have the option of electing regulation under
Subpart K.  This includes 536 colleges and universities, 112 teaching
hospitals, and 25 non-profit research institutes.  Of this total, 169
are LQGs, 323 are SQGs, and 181 are CESQGs.

Third, to estimate the number of eligible academic entities that would
opt for regulation under Subpart K, the analysis examines potential
changes in waste management costs.  The cost assessment is based on
models of eligible academic entities that take into account various
factors, including (1) the number of laboratories the entity operates,
(2) whether the entity uses a 90/180 day hazardous waste accumulation
area (hereafter referred to as a central accumulation area, or CAA) to
accumulate hazardous wastes from different laboratories, and (3) the
entity's RCRA hazardous waste generator status.  The analysis examined
changes in the costs associated with making HW determinations, changes
in waste collection and shipment costs, changes in waste manifest and
reporting costs, and changes in planning and administrative costs.  The
analysis assumes that only those eligible academic entities that would
expect to experience a reduction in waste management costs will opt to
be regulated under Subpart K.

After estimating the number of generators that would opt into regulation
under Subpart K, the analysis estimates the impact of the final rule,
focusing on the cost savings that the rule would provide.

Results

Table 1-1 presents the results of the analysis.  As the table indicates,
the final rule would provide annual cost savings of approximately
$396,000.  These savings would be realized by the estimated 112 eligible
academic entities that would opt to be regulated under Subpart K.  The
greatest savings would accrue to the 25 LQGs projected to elect
regulation under Subpart K; the analysis estimates average annual
savings of approximately $12,200 per adopting entity for this group.
Lesser savings would be realized by the 87 SQGs that are projected to
opt for regulation under Subpart K; for each of these adopting entities,
the analysis estimates average annual savings of approximately $1,000.
Overall, average annual savings for eligible academic entities under
Subpart K are estimated at approximately $3,500.

Table 1-1. Estimated Impacts of Final Rule

Item	LQGs	SQGs	CESQGs	All Facilities

Universe of Eligible Academic Entities	397	759	424	1,580

Eligible Academic Entities in States Codifying Subpart K	169	323	181	673

Academic Entities Projected to Adopt Subpart K	25	87	0	112

Average Annual Cost Savings Per Adopting Entity1	$12,200	$1,040	NA
$3,540

Total Annual Cost Savings1	$306,000	$90,200	$0	$396,000

1.  Monetary values presented to three significant digits.

An important benefit of Subpart K for some eligible academic entities
will be the opportunity to maintain their typical RCRA generator status,
which can lead to savings in reporting, planning, and overall
administrative costs.  The analysis suggests that approximately 14
entities that are currently LQGs will realize these benefits, becoming
SQGs as a result of opting into regulation under Subpart K.  Similarly,
approximately seven SQGs will realize savings from a change in generator
status, becoming CESQGs as a result of electing regulation under Subpart
K.

A significant portion of the cost savings shown in Table 1-1 reflects a
reduction in the cost of transporting unwanted laboratory materials to a
hazardous waste disposal facility, particularly among colleges,
universities, and research institutes that are able to maintain their
typical generator status from LQG to SQG as a result of the rule.  Such
a change allows for longer accumulation times and increased efficiencies
in the number of laboratories visited per day for entities without CAAs,
in order to remove unwanted materials.

In addition to reduced transportation costs, much of the benefits in
Table 1-1 include reduced costs for onsite travel.  This largely
reflects the stipulation in the alternative standards that a hazardous
waste determination for unwanted laboratory material may occur in the
laboratory at any time before it is removed from the lab or within four
days of arrival at an on-site CAA or treatment, storage, or disposal
facility unlike existing generator regulations that stipulate that the
hazardous waste determination must be made at the point of generation.

The final rule will also yield important environmental benefits.  More
specifically, the laboratory management plans and enhanced personnel
training associated with the alternative standards will likely improve
the environmental performance of eligible academic entities, thereby
reducing risk.  In addition, because the alternative standards encourage
more frequent removals of unwanted materials from the laboratory as well
as provide incentives to conduct laboratory clean-outs, the final rule
will reduce the likelihood of unwanted materials accumulating to
dangerous levels in the laboratories of eligible academic entities.

Finally, it is important to note that the data and methods upon which
the results are based may not capture the large variation in hazardous
waste generation and management practices of individual eligible
academic entities.  With available data, we could only broadly
characterize certain aspects of laboratory operations.  As a result, for
some eligible entities, the cost impacts of the final rule may differ
significantly from the estimates presented in this document due to
facility-specific practices or characteristics.

Other Regulatory Issues

This analysis of EPA's final rule satisfies the requirements of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended by
Executive Order 13258.  It also fulfills the requirements of the
following:

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA);

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA);

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA);

Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights;

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations;

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks;

Executive Order 13132, Federalism;

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments; and

Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

The rule is not expected to result in significant impacts as defined
under RFA/SBREFA, UMRA, or any of the executive orders listed above.

2.0	BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS

This Economic Assessment (EA) document presents EPA's analysis of the
benefits, costs, and other economic impacts associated with the final
rule revising the management requirements for hazardous waste generated
in laboratories at eligible academic entities.  EPA is promulgating
these alternative generator requirements (in Part 262, Subpart K) to
provide a flexible and protective set of regulations that reflects the
unique nature of hazardous waste generation in academic laboratories.
The flexibility afforded by the final rule will allow laboratories at
eligible academic entities the discretion to determine the most
appropriate and effective method of complying with the performance-based
requirements included in the final rule.  In addition, because the
alternative requirements established by the final rule are voluntary,
eligible academic entities will have the choice of managing their
hazardous laboratory wastes in accordance with these requirements or
remaining subject to the existing generator regulations.

2.1	Background and Need for Regulation

For nearly two decades, EPA has led and participated in several efforts
to gain a better understanding of the challenges associated with the
management of hazardous wastes generated in academic laboratories.
EPA's efforts in this regard date back to 1989 when the Agency issued a
Report to Congress outlining the then current regulatory requirements
for college and university laboratories managing hazardous waste, the
current practices at these laboratories, and the problems related to the
management of these wastes.  In addition, in the late 1990s, EPA
initiated Project XL (eXcellence and Leadership), a pilot program for a
limited number of colleges and universities that provided the regulatory
flexibility necessary for participating institutions to experiment with
promising regulatory approaches for managing hazardous laboratory
wastes.  More recently, EPA participated in a pilot project in
collaboration with ten major academic research institutions and the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute to evaluate a performance-based approach
for managing hazardous waste generated by college and university
laboratories.

Through the efforts outlined above and other initiatives, EPA has become
aware of several challenges that hinder compliance with the RCRA
satellite accumulation area regulations that govern academic
laboratories.  These include the following:

Lack of RCRA training among student populations: Most industrial
facilities employ a fairly stable work force of trained professionals to
make hazardous waste determinations at the time and point of generation.
 In contrast, the individuals in academic laboratories generating
hazardous waste and other materials are typically students who are
untrained and unqualified to make hazardous waste determinations.
Therefore, when hazardous wastes or other materials are generated in
laboratories, environmental health and safety personnel often need to
travel to the laboratory to make a hazardous waste determination or are
present at the laboratory to make the determination.

Transient nature of student populations: Related to the lack of RCRA
training among students is the transient nature of student populations.
Because the population of students generating hazardous laboratory
wastes is continually changing, attempting to train these students in
hazardous waste management would be a difficult and resource-intensive
task.

Number and heterogeneity of waste streams generated: In traditional
industrial settings, the quantity of waste generated is generally known
in advance, and relatively large volumes of each waste type are
generated.  In addition, there are typically few waste streams per
facility, with little variability over time.  Laboratories, however,
typically generate a large number of small-volume wastes involving a
wide variety of chemicals.  Because of this heterogeneity and the large
number of waste streams generated, it is difficult to make a hazardous
waste determination for each waste stream at the time and place where it
is generated.

Current regulation discourages laboratory clean-outs: During a
laboratory clean-out, labs at eligible academic entities may generate
hazardous wastes and acutely hazardous wastes in relatively large
quantities because many unused bottles of chemical reagents may be
identified as hazardous waste at the same time.  This episodic
generation of laboratory hazardous waste could force several facilities
to change their generator status from small quantity generator to large
quantity generator.  Because a facility's generator status dictates the
management requirements with which it must comply, a change in this
status would affect its hazardous waste management costs.  Therefore,
under current regulation, eligible academic entities have an incentive
to delay or forgo laboratory clean-outs to avoid the increase in
hazardous waste management costs that would result from a potential
change in generator status.  This may explain why a recent survey by the
National Association of College and University Business Officers found
that 25 percent of SQGs do not conduct laboratory clean-outs.

To address these challenges, the final rule will provide eligible
academic entities the discretion to make the hazardous waste
determination at an on-site location other than the laboratory and at a
time after its initial generation.  As such, the final rule will reflect
the unique nature of hazardous waste generation at eligible academic
entity laboratories.  To ensure the continued protection of human health
and the environment, the final rule also includes a number of training,
labeling, and laboratory management requirements.  Additional
information on the specific conditions included in the rule is presented
below.

2.2	Summary of the Final Rule

Under the final rule, eligible academic entities may continue to manage
chemicals or other materials that are no longer needed, wanted, or
useable in the laboratory in accordance with existing generator
regulations or they may choose to manage these materials (hereafter
referred to as unwanted materials) under the alternative requirements
set forth in this rule.  The key differences between these two sets of
requirements include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

Location and timing of hazardous waste determination: Under current
regulation, laboratories at eligible academic entities are required to
make hazardous waste determinations at the point of generation (i.e., in
the laboratory) at the time the unwanted material is generated.  In
contrast, under the voluntary alternative standards established by the
final rule, hazardous waste determinations would be conducted by a
trained professional (1) in the laboratory at any time before the
unwanted material is removed from the laboratory or (2) within four days
of the unwanted material's arrival at an onsite central accumulation
area (CAA) or onsite treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF).
This provision of the alternative standards would give eligible academic
entities significantly more flexibility in conducting hazardous waste
determinations than is possible under the satellite accumulation area
regulations.

Laboratory clean-outs: As indicated above, the episodic generation of
hazardous waste during laboratory clean-outs may affect the RCRA
generator status of eligible academic entities.  The alternative
standards would address this issue by allowing laboratories at eligible
academic entities to conduct one clean-out per year without counting the
hazardous waste that is an unused commercial chemical product generated
during the clean-out toward their RCRA generator status.  This provision
of the rule applies only for unwanted materials that are to be managed
on-site.  The Preamble to the final rule includes additional details on
this exemption.

Training requirements: The RCRA satellite accumulation area regulations
do not require that laboratory workers or students in laboratories at
eligible academic entities receive RCRA hazardous waste management
training.  To ensure that laboratory workers and students understand the
alternative standards and are capable of implementing them, the
alternative standards require students and laboratory workers to receive
training commensurate with their duties in the laboratory.  The
alternative standards also require RCRA hazardous waste management
training for individuals who make the hazardous waste determination and
individuals who transfer unwanted materials and hazardous wastes outside
the laboratory.

Labeling requirements: Because the final rule provides laboratories with
flexibility in where and when to make hazardous waste determinations,
the alternative standards also include labeling requirements to ensure
that this determination is made properly and to ensure that
non-laboratory personnel can quickly ascertain whether the unwanted
materials may pose hazards in the event of an emergency.  More
specifically, the alternative standards require that laboratory
containers are labeled as "unwanted material" or another equally
effective term that is consistently used by the laboratory.  In
addition, the material must be labeled with sufficient information (1)
to allow a trained professional to make a hazardous waste determination
and (2) to alert emergency responders to the contents of the container.
If the material is determined to be a hazardous waste, the alternative
standards also require that it be labeled as such once the hazardous
waste determination has been made.

Laboratory Management Plan: The final rule requires that eligible
academic entities opting into the alternative standards develop a
laboratory management plan (LMP).  The goal of the LMP is for eligible
academic entities to carefully plan how they will implement the
alternative standards' performance-based requirements for safely
managing unwanted materials generated in laboratories.  EPA believes
that the LMP provides a necessary supplement to the flexibility provided
in the final rule and will ultimately work to increase environmental
performance and protection by improving the coordination and integration
of hazardous waste management procedures at eligible academic entity
laboratories.

Through these and other changes, the final rule will create a flexible,
protective set of regulations addressing the unique nature of hazardous
waste generation in eligible academic entity laboratories.  The final
rule will allow these laboratories the discretion to determine a method
of regulatory compliance best suited to their circumstances, and promote
environmental protection and public health through safer management of
laboratory wastes.  Table 2-1 provides additional information on the
various provisions of the final rule and compares the final rule to
current regulations and the requirements outlined in the proposed rule.

Table 2-1. Comparison of Satellite Regulations vs. Proposed Labs Rule
vs. Final Rule

Subject	Satellite Regulations1	Proposed Rule	Final Rule

Name of accumulation area	Satellite Accumulation Area (SAA)	Laboratory:

Art studios are labs

Photo labs and other labs where same waste is routinely generated are
not considered labs	Laboratory:

Art studios are labs

Lab support areas such as photo labs, chemical stockrooms, preparatory
labs are also considered labs

Materials Regulated	Hazardous Waste	Unwanted Material (may include
non-hazardous wastes initially)	Unwanted Material (may include
non-hazardous wastes initially)

                                 Acute lab waste	124 acute hazardous
wastes	7 reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials	6 reactive
acutely hazardous unwanted materials

Scope/Applicability of Proposal

Type of Facility	N/A	Eligible to Opt in:

Colleges & Universities only

Hospitals not eligible –

requested comment only	Eligible to Opt in:

Colleges & Universities

Teaching hospitals with formal college or university affiliation

Non-profit Research Institutes with formal written affiliation with CU

Generator status	N/A	LQGs & SQGs only eligible

CESQGs not eligible – requested comment only	LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs
are all eligible

Notification	Notify by 8700-12	Notify by letter	Notify by 8700-12

Making the HW determination

(where & when)	HW determination must be made at the point of generation:

in the SAA

when the HW is generated	HW determination must be made:

Before removed from the lab, or

within 4 days of arriving in on-site CAA or TSDF

	HW determination must be made:

Before removed from the lab, or

within 4 days of arriving in on-site CAA or TSDF

                        HW determination

                            for P-list/acutes

               (& episodic generation)

	124 acute HW

LQG status if >1 qt/mo	124 acute HW

LQG status if >1 qt/mo	124 acute HW

LQG status if >1 qt/mo

Container Labeling in Lab

                     Affixed to container	The words “hazardous
waste” or “other words that identify the contents of the
container”	The words “unwanted materials” 	The words “unwanted
material” or

“another equally effective term” that is consistently used

Affixed to container	No emergency information required	“sufficient
information to alert emergency responders to the hazard or the contents
of the container”	“sufficient information to alert emergency
responders to the contents of the container”

            Associated with container	N/A	Sufficient information to
allow a “RCRA-trained individual” to make a HW determination
Sufficient information to allow a “trained professional” to make a
HW determination

Associated with container	N/A	The date unwanted material first begins
accumulating 	The date unwanted material first begins accumulating

Container Labeling after HW Determination

                  Hazardous waste code

                  on container	Not explicitly addressed in regulations
or guidance, but often required by inspectors in lab at point of
generation	The hazardous waste code must be added to container after HW
determination (on label that is affixed to the container)	The hazardous
waste code must be added to container before HW can be transported
off-site (on label that is affixed to the container)

                      “Hazardous Waste”	The words “hazardous
waste” must be added to container in central accumulation area	The
words “hazardous waste” must be added to container after HW
determination (on label that is affixed to the container)	The words
“hazardous waste” must be added to container after HW determination
(on label that is affixed to the container)

Container Management in Lab	Containers must be in good condition

Containers must be compatible with contents

Containers must be kept closed except when adding or removing waste
“must properly manage containers to assure safe storage of the
unwanted material, to prevent leaks, spills, emissions to the air,
adverse chemical reactions, and to prevent dangerous situations that may
result in harm to human health or the environment”

Containers must be in good condition

Containers must be compatible with contents	“must properly manage
containers to assure safe storage of the unwanted material, to prevent
leaks, spills, emissions to the air, adverse chemical reactions, and to
prevent dangerous situations that may result in harm to human health or
the environment”

Containers must be in good condition

Containers must be compatible with contents

Working Containers	N/A	Not included in proposed rule – requested
comment only	Containers must be kept closed, except

When adding, removing or consolidating unwanted material

When container is a working container

When venting is necessary

For the operation of lab equipment, or

To prevent a dangerous situation

On-site Consolidation Area or

“Super Satellite Area”	Consolidation among satellite areas
prohibited, unless the area meets central accumulation area requirements
A new type of area is not included in proposed rule – requested
comment only	A new type of area is not included in final rule, but
preamble allows on-site consolidation among laboratories

Training & Instruction

                     Laboratory Workers	None required for those working
exclusively in SAAs	Training that is commensurate with duties	Training
that is commensurate with duties

                                        Students	None required for those
working exclusively in SAAs	Students must receive instruction relevant
to their activities 	Training that is commensurate with duties

                  On-site transportation	RCRA training required for
individuals that transfer HWon-site (per guidance only)	RCRA training,
according to generator status, required for individuals that transfer
unwanted materials/HW on-site

(per proposed regulation)	RCRA training, according to generator status,
required for individuals that transfer unwanted materials/HW on-site

                         Training Records	None required for those
working exclusively in SAAs

For LQGs only: training records required for:

on-site transporters

 those making HW determination	For LQGs only: training records required
for:

laboratory workers

on-site transporters

those making HW determination

no training records for students	For LQGs only: training records
required for:

laboratory workers

on-site transporters

those making HW determination

no training records for students

Removing containers from lab

      Maximum accumulation time

                                            in lab	None, unless maximum
volumes are exceeded (see below)	1 option for regular removals from lab:

all containers must be removed every 6 months at maximum, unless volumes
are exceeded (see below)	2 options for regular removals from lab unless
volumes are exceeded (see below):

all containers must be removed every 6 months at maximum,

no container can be in lab longer than six months

 Maximum accumulation volume

                                            in lab	55 gallons of HW

1 qt of 124 acute HW	55 gallons of unwanted material

1 qt of  7 reactive acutely unwanted material	55 gallons of unwanted
material

1 qt of  6 reactive acutely unwanted material

Maximum number of days that lab can exceed maximum volume	3 days	10 days
(date required on container to determine 10 days)	10 days (date required
on container to determine 10 days)

Laboratory Cleanouts	Regulations act as disincentive:

maximum volumes are easily exceeded, and excess must be removed within 3
days	Incentives provided for non-mandatory clean-outs (limited to once
per 12 months per lab):

30 days allowed for clean-out

Do not have to count HW generated during clean-out toward generator
status

Records required for lab clean-out	Incentives provided for non-mandatory
clean-outs (limited to once per 12 months per lab):

30 days allowed for clean-out

For on-site accumulation of HW- do not have to count HW that is unused
commercial chemical product generated during clean-out toward generator
status

For off-site management of HW – all HW must be counted toward
generator status

Records required for lab clean-out

Laboratory Management Plan (LMP)	None required	9 required elements for
LMP	9 required elements for LMP

                     LMP Enforceability	N/A	2 options co-proposed:

1.  LMP contents are not enforceable

2. LMP contents are enforceable	LMP must have two parts:

Part I – LMP contents are enforceable

Part II – LMP contents are not enforceable

1.  RCRA satellite accumulation area regulations that govern academic
laboratories.

2.3			Alternative Options Analyzed

In addition to analyzing the impacts of the final rule, this document
considers the impacts associated with two alternative options (Option A
and Option B) contemplated by EPA to inform the development of the final
rule.  These options were not under consideration for the final rule but
were instrumental in developing the final rule.  Option A is more
stringent than the final rule, specifying shorter maximum accumulation
times, shorter time limits on allowed exceedance of the 55-gallon
maximum accumulation volume, more prescriptive labeling requirements,
more rigorous hazardous waste management training for students, and more
prescriptive container management practices.  Alternative Option B is
less stringent than the final rule, with more relaxed requirements for
LMPs, longer accumulation time limits, and the elimination of
notification requirements.  Table 2-2 summarizes the differences between
the final rule and alternative Option A and alternative Option B.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 2-2.  Differences Between The Final Rule
and Option A and Option B

Management Item	Final Rule	Option A

(more stringent)	Option B

(less stringent)

Maximum accumulation time in laboratory	2 options for regular removals
from lab unless volumes are exceeded (see below):

All containers must be removed every  6 months at maximum,

No container can be in lab longer than six months	Shorter time period (3
months)	Longer time period (1 year)

Maximum number of days that laboratory can exceed maximum volume	10 days
Shorter time period (7 days)	Longer time period (14 days)

Labeling	Container in lab:

Label container in lab "unwanted material" or another equally effective
term that is consistently used.

Include sufficient information on label to alert emergency responders to
the contents of the container and to allow a “trained professional”
to make a hazardous waste determination.

Date unwanted material first begins accumulating

After hazardous waste determination (if hazardous):

Hazardous waste codes must be added to container prior to offsite
transport.

The words “hazardous waste” must be added to container after HW
determination	Prescriptive labeling  requirements spelled out in the
proposed rule	Same as final rule

Training 	Laboratory worker and student training that is commensurate
with duties.

RCRA training, according to generator status, required for individuals
that transfer unwanted materials/HW on-site.

For LQGs only: training records required for laboratory workers, on-site
transporters , or those making HW determination.

No training records required for students	Training and instruction
commensurate with duties as in final rule.

Requires training for students in: labeling, container mgmt., and
emergency resp.

Training described in LMP	Same as final rule

Container management	Must properly manage containers to assure safe
storage of the unwanted material, to prevent leaks, spills, emissions to
the air, adverse chemical reactions, and to prevent dangerous situations
that may result in harm to human health or the environment

Containers must be in good condition

Containers must be compatible with contents	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
final rule

Laboratory management plan	9 required elements for LMP	Contents of
laboratory management plan enforced against	No laboratory management
plan

Notification	Notify by 8700-12	Notify by 8700-12	No notification for
opt-in or opt out

Note: This table includes only those elements of the final rule that
differ with either Option A or Option B.  Elements of the final rule
that are the same under Options A and B are not presented in this table.

Public Comments Relevant to EPA's Economic Analysis of the Proposed
Rule

EPA received 111 public comments on the proposed rule related to its
scope, the requirements included in the alternative standards, and the
burden associated with these standards.  Approximately two-thirds of
these comments were from colleges and universities or trade groups that
represent colleges and universities.  In general, these institutions
were supportive of the Agency’s effort to address the challenges they
face in complying with RCRA in their laboratories.  Many indicated,
however, that they would not opt into the proposed alternative
standards, and recommended several changes to the rule.  EPA also
received comments from 13 States, some expressing support for the rule
and others expressing skepticism that it is necessary.

Several of the comments submitted to EPA expressed concern that EPA
underestimated the fraction of college and university hazardous waste
generated in laboratories.  In contrast to the nine percent estimate
generated by EPA for its economic analysis of the proposed rule, these
commenters stated that, in their experience, laboratory waste represents
a much larger portion (60 to 95 percent) of a college or university's
total waste stream.  To address this concern, this assessment document
for the final rule uses a more refined methodology for estimating the
quantity of hazardous waste generated by laboratories at eligible
academic entities.  For the proposal, the Agency used key-word searches
of description fields in EPA's Biennial Report database to identify
laboratory hazardous wastes.  In contrast, the revised methodology for
this assessment uses Biennial Report source codes in conjunction with
information in the Biennial Report description field to identify
hazardous wastes from laboratories, as described in greater detail in
Section 3 of this document., Based on the revised methodology, EPA now
estimates that 73 percent of the hazardous waste generated by eligible
college and university LQGs is from laboratories.  At teaching hospitals
and non-profit research institutes, this figure is even higher—81
percent and 92 percent, respectively.

EPA also received public comments recommending an expansion of the
proposed rule.  EPA expanded the scope of the rule to include
laboratories owned by colleges and universities, and teaching hospitals
and nonprofit research institutes that are either owned by or formally
affiliated with a college or university.  In addition, EPA revised the
definition of laboratories to include photographic laboratories.  We
assess impacts for all of these facilities based on the data and methods
described in Sections 3 and 4 of this document.

2.5	Report Organization

To support the development of the final rule, EPA designed and conducted
this analysis of the rule’s costs, benefits, and economic impacts
consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 13258, and OMB Circular A-4.  We present the data,
methods, and results of this analysis in the following sections:

Eligible Academic Entity Profiles.  This section profiles the various
types of eligible academic entities that may be affected by the final
rule.  For each type of entity, we present the number of facilities in
the U.S., and the quantity of hazardous laboratory waste generated by
these entities.  For the purpose of comparing measured economic effects
to the size of eligible academic entities, we also report average annual
revenues for the entity profiles.

Model Facility Assumptions and Unit Cost Estimates.  Following the
summary of eligible academic entities, we summarize the methods employed
by EPA to assess the impacts of the final rule.

Cost and Economic Impact Analysis.  After outlining the Agency's
analytic approach, we present EPA's estimates of the final rule's costs,
benefits, and economic impacts.

Qualitative Benefits. Although we did not quantify the human health and
environmental impacts of the final rule, this section provides a
qualitative discussion of these impacts.

Other Administrative Requirements.  This section assesses distributional
and other impacts of the final rule, including environmental justice
implications, children's health, impacts to Tribal Governments, and
energy use and distribution effects resulting from the rule.

3.0 		ELIGIBLE ACADEMIC ENTITIES

This section presents an overview of academic entities that may have the
opportunity to opt into the final rule.  Specifically, we first
characterize the general industry classification of such entities.
Next, we discuss the process of deriving the number of entities within
each class that likely meet the eligibility requirements of the final
rule and their hazardous waste generation estimates.  This universe of
eligible academic entities is then scaled down to those entities located
within states projected to adopt the final rule.  This scaled universe
serves as the primary basis for estimating economic effects of the final
rule.  The final segments of this section includes a summary of average
revenues for the various entity types (which are used to estimate
regulatory impacts as a percent of revenues), and a discussion of
analytic limitations.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 3.1	Industry Classification of Eligible Academic
Entities

Eligible academic entities include colleges and universities, teaching
hospitals and non-profit research institutes.  Table 3-1 identifies the
general industry categories of eligible academic entities, by North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.  It is important
to recognize that not all entities within a particular NAICS code will
meet the eligibility requirements of the final rule.  For example, not
all entities maintain hazardous waste generating laboratories.  Further,
under NAICS code 622, only teaching hospitals that are either owned by,
or have a formal written affiliation agreement with, a college or
university and that generate hazardous waste in laboratories are
eligible.  Similar eligibility requirements apply to non-profit research
institutes.  Thus, the analysis requires that we identify and
characterize the universe of entities within each NAICS code that are
likely eligible.  We describe the process below.

3.2	Universe of Eligible Academic Entities and their Laboratory
Hazardous Waste

We derived an estimate of the number of eligible academic entities and
their laboratory hazardous waste quantities from an analysis of EPA's
2005 biennial report (BR) database and other sources.  The derivation
process utilized a variety of procedures to identify eligible academic
entities and their laboratory waste generation.  For example,   SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 for LQGs, the Agency compiled facility information from
the 2005 BR, with eligible academic entities being determined by NAICS
code and by key-word searches (e.g., for CUs, word searches included
“university”, “college”, etc.).

Table 3-1. Industry Classification of Entities Potentially Affected by
the Final Rule

NAICS Codes	Description of NAICS Code

Colleges & Universities

6112, 61121, 611210	Junior Colleges

6113, 61131, 611310	Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools

6115, 61151	Technical and Trade Schools

611519	Other Technical and Trade Schools

61161, 611610	Fine Arts Schools

Teaching Hospitals

54194, 541940	Veterinary Services (Animal Hospitals)

622	Hospitals

6221, 62211, 622110	General Medical and Surgical Hospitals

6222, 62221, 622210	Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals

6223, 62231, 622310	Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse)
Hospitals

Non-Profit Research Institutes

5417, 54171, 541710	Research and Development in the Physical,
Engineering, and Life Sciences

54172, 541720	Research and Development in the Social Sciences and
Humanities

The general procedures used for identifying eligible academic SQGs and
CESQGs were more complex, given data limitations (these entities have
little or no biennial reporting obligations).  These procedures
included, for example, developing a list of facilities using BR Waste
Received from Offsite (WR) Form data, focusing on facilities shipping
specific amounts of hazardous waste (e.g., for SQGs, between 1.3 and
13.2 tons).  Additionally, the Agency added SQG and CESQGs that
submitted Site ID Forms in their 2005 BR, but who were not included in
WR Forms; for these facilities, data on the quantity of waste generated
were obtained from Waste Generation and Management (GM) Forms.  SQG and
CESQG data compiled were then supplemented with facility information
from other data sources, including RCRAInfo, EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI), and Internet searches.

Based upon this analysis, we identified 1,580 eligible academic entities
that generated laboratory hazardous waste in 2005.  Table 3-2 outlines
the actual number of eligible academic entities by type of institution
and generator status.  Concerning the generator status of these
entities, 397 are LQGs, 759 are SQGs, and 424 are CESQGs.  When
categorized by type of entity, the 969 four-year colleges and
universities represent the largest category, accounting for more than 61
percent of the total.

Table 3-2.  Number of Eligible Academic Entities With Laboratories, by
Type and Generator Status

Type of Eligible Academic Entity	LQG	SQG	CESQG

Total Number of Eligible Academic Entities

4-year Colleges and Universities (CUs)	279	456	234	969

2-year Colleges and Universities (CUs)	7	134	84	225

Vocational1	0	25	37	62

Teaching Hospital	103	120	40	263

Non-Profit Research Institutes	8	24	29	61

Total	397	759	424	1,580

1.  Vocational facilities are those with the following NAICS codes:
6115, 61151, 611519, 61161, 611610.

Sources:  ICF International. May 1, 2008. “Phase I Lab Rule Data
Analysis”. Memorandum from Maribelle Rodriguez and Earl Harris, ICF to
Patricia Mercer, EPA; ICF International. May 1, 2008. “Phase II Lab
Rule Data Analysis”. Memorandum from Maribelle Rodriguez, Earl Harris,
Jonathan Cohen, and Nina Perlman, ICF to Patricia Mercer, EPA; and 2005
Biennial Report Data.

An important component of the EA involves estimating average laboratory
and hazardous waste quantities for eligible academic entities.  These
quantities and related management practices link to the derivation of
"model" facility costs discussed in Section 4 of this report.  In this
regard, we note that the estimation of waste quantities has evolved
between the proposed and final rule.  In the economic analysis
supporting the proposed rule, the Agency developed upper and lower bound
laboratory hazardous waste generation estimates.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
The lower bound estimate included only those waste streams that
contained the word “lab” in the biennial reporting database.  The
upper bound estimate included all hazardous wastes identified with the
word “lab”, as well as all other hazardous wastes reported in the
description reporting database that had no accompanying description.
This methodology yielded, for example, hazardous waste quantities per
facility ranging from   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 8.8 to 15.3 tons per year
for LQGs, and   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 0.32 to 0.62 tons per year for SQGs.

Certain public comments indicated that waste quantities generated in
laboratories were considerably higher than estimated using this
methodology.  In response, EPA revised the methodology employed in
determining total laboratory hazardous waste for the final rule.
Specifically, the revised methodology uses biennial report source codes
to identify hazardous wastes from laboratories, including: G11 -
Discarding off-specification or out-of-date chemicals or products; G22
– Laboratory analytical wastes; and, G09 - Other production or
service-related processes from which the waste is a direct outflow or
result.  In addition, the Agency used a combination of key-word searches
of waste description fields.

This revised method yielded higher laboratory hazardous waste estimates
for all eligible academic entities.  For example, the estimated average
laboratory hazardous waste generation for college and university LQGs is
now   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 30.5 tons per year, approximately two times
higher than the upper bound estimate relied upon in the proposed rule
economic analysis.  Increases in the estimated waste quantities for SQG
laboratories were more significant, with an estimate of 8.6 tons per
year.

Table 3-3 presents waste quantity estimates for each class of eligible
academic entity identified in this analysis.  When reviewing the table,
note that hazardous waste quantity data were not available for many SQGs
and CESQGs.  For example, hazardous waste data were not available for
186 of 615 CU SQGs.  In this instance, we assumed that waste quantities
for these CUs were equal to the average waste quantities for CU SQGs
that reported waste quantity data.  The same methodology was used to
derive estimates of hazardous waste for all SQGs and CESQGs that did not
report waste quantities in the Biennial Reporting System.

3.3	Scaled Universe of Eligible Academic Entities in States Assumed to
Adopt the Regulation

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

Thus, an important consideration in determining which eligible entities
may opt into in the final rule is whether the entity is located in a
state that is likely to adopt the final rule.  For purposes of making
this determination, we assume that states which have adopted at least 85
percent of RCRA rule changes within a five year period will adopt EPA's
final rule.  The Agency believes that a 5 year period is reasonable in
that it will allow states time to review the rule, to introduce state
legislation, to appropriate any funds, etc.  We would like to point out
that the analysis is potentially sensitive to the assumption that states
that adopt more than 85 % of RCRA rule changes will adopt today’s
final rule.  If the analysis assumed a different adoption percentage
over a five year period, the number of eligible academic entities
impacted by the rule might change.  Certain states have high numbers of
colleges and universities, teaching hospitals and non-profit research
institutes that are owned by or affiliated with a college or university.
 By assuming an adoption percentage that includes states with high
numbers of eligible academic entities, the results could be
significantly impacted.  On the other hand, by assuming an adoption
percentage that includes states with low numbers of eligible academic
entities, the results could be only slightly impacted, depending on what
states have this adoption percentage.

Again, because states can decide whether or not to adopt today’s rule,
we decided to make the conservative assumption that states which have
adopted at least 85 percent of RCRA rule changes within a five year
period will adopt EPA's final rule.  Applying this criterion, 29 states
plus Puerto Rico will adopt the final rule.  An estimated 169 LQGs, 323
SQGs and 181 CESQGs are located in these states, as indicated in Table
3-4.  As noted earlier, it is this scaled universe of eligible academic
entities that are the focus of the impacts estimated in this EA.

Table 3-3. Total Universe of Eligible Academic Entities Potentially
Affected by the Final Laboratory Rule and Their Hazardous Waste
Generation Quantities

Facility Type	Number	Total Laboratory Hazardous Waste*	All Hazardous
Waste**	Average Total Lab Waste Per Facility	Average Total Hazardous
Waste Per Facility

Tons/yr	Tons/yr	Tons/yr	Tons/yr

CU LQGs	286	6,530.1	8,717.7	22.83	30.48

	CU SQGs (w. data) 1/	429	339.8	3,698.9	0.79	8.62

CU SQGs (w.o. data) 2/	186	147.3	1,603.7	0.79	8.62

Total CU SQGs	615	487.1	5,302.7	0.79	8.62

	CU CESQGs (w. data) 3/	122	31.9	67.7	0.26	0.55

CU CESQGs (w.o. data) 4/	233	60.9	129.3	0.26	0.55

Total CU CESQGs	355	92.8	197.0	0.26	0.55

	Teaching Hospital LQGs	103	1,712.5	2,099.5	16.63	20.38

	Teaching Hospital SQGs (w. data) 5/	103	99.7	341.7	0.97	3.32

Teaching Hospital SQGs (w.o. data) 6/	17	16.5	56.4	0.97	3.32

Total Teaching Hospital SQGs	120	116.1	398.1	0.97	3.32

	Teaching Hospital CESQGs (w. data) 7/	14	3.2	7.8	0.23	0.55

Teaching Hospital CESQGs (w.o. data) 8/	26	5.9	14.4	0.23	0.55

Total Teaching Hospital CESQGs	40	9.1	22.2	0.23	0.55

	Non-Profit Research Institutes LQGs	8	119.5	130.3	14.93	16.29

	Non-Profit Research Institutes SQGs (w. data) 9/	4	10.5	12.8	2.61	3.21

Non-Profit Research Institutes SQGs (w.o. data) 10/	20	52.3	64.2	2.61
3.21

Total Non-Profit Research Institutes SQGs	24	62.7	77.0	2.61	3.21

	Non-Profit Research Institutes CESQGs (w. data) 11/	3	0.64	1.4	0.21
0.46

Non-Profit Research Institutes CESQGs (w.o. data) 12/	5	1.07	2.3	0.21
0.46

Non-Profit Research Institutes CESQGs (other) 13/	21	4.48	9.7	0.21	0.46

Total Non-Profit Research Institutes CESQGs	29	6.19	13.4	0.21	0.46

Grand Total	1,580	9,136.1	16,957.8	5.78	10.73

1/ CU SQGs with waste data: 429 of 950 SQGs have lab wastes (45.16%)

2/ CU SQGs without waste data: 186 of 411 SQGs are assumed to have lab
wastes (45.16%)

3/ CU CESQGs with waste data: 122 of 463 CESQGS have lab wastes
(26.349%)

4/ CU CESQGs without waste data: 233 of 884 CESQGS are assumed to have
lab wastes (26.349%)

5/ Hospital SQGs with waste data: 103 of 202 SQGs have lab wastes
(50.99%)

6/ Hospital SQGs without waste data: 17 of 33 SQGs are assumed to have
lab wastes (50.99%)

7/ Hospital CESQGs with waste data: 14 of 38 SQGs have lab wastes
(36.84%)

8/ Hospital CESQGs without waste data: 26 of 70 SQGs are assumed to have
lab wastes (36.84%)

9/ R&D SQGs with waste data: 4 of 8 SQGs have lab wastes (50%)

10/ R&D SQGs estimated to be affiliated with a CU based on ICF analysis:
47. Of these, 8 had waste data indicating that 4 generated lab waste. Of
the remaining 39 R&D SQGs affiliated with a CU, 20 are estimated to have
lab waste ((47-8)*0.50=19.5, rounded to 20)

11/ R&D CESQGs with waste data: 3 of 3 CESQGS have lab wastes (100%)

12/ R&D CESQGs without waste data: 5 of 5 CESQGs are assumed to have lab
wastes (100%)

13/ R&D CESQGs estimated to be affiliated with a CU based on ICF
analysis: 29. Of these 3 had waste data indicating they generated lab
waste; 5 had no waste data. Of the remaining 21 R&D CESQGs affiliated
with a CU, all are assumed to have lab waste.

* Total laboratory hazardous wastes include photo laboratory and art
studio laboratory hazardous wastes.

** Remediation waste was excluded from the totals of hazardous waste,
because the events are unusual and produce large quantities of hazardous
waste that are atypical.

Source: Biennial Reporting Data, 2005; totals may not add due to
independent rounding.

Table 3-4 Number of Eligible Academic   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Entities
Located in the 29  States and One Territory Projected to Adopt the
Laboratory Rule

Type of Eligible Academic Entity	LQG	SQG	CESQG

Total Number of Eligible Academic Entities

4-year CUs	119	194	100	413

2-year CUs	3	57	36	96

Vocational1	0	11	16	27

Teaching Hospital	44	51	17	112

Non-Profit Research Institutes	3	10	12	25

Total	169	323	181	673

1.  Vocational facilities are those with the following NAICS codes:
6115, 61151, 611519, 61161, 611610.

Sources: ICF International. May 1, 2008. “Phase I Lab Rule Data
Analysis”. Memorandum from Maribelle Rodriguez and Earl Harris, ICF to
Patricia Mercer, EPA; ICF International. May 1, 2008. “Phase II Lab
Rule Data Analysis”. Memorandum from Maribelle Rodriguez, Earl Harris,
Jonathan Cohen, and Nina Perlman, ICF to Patricia Mercer, EPA; 2005
Biennial Report Data; and Data from the StATS data system on March 31,
2005.

3.4	Average Revenues of Eligible Academic Entities

In Section 5 of this EA, the cost impacts of the final rule are compared
to average revenues of eligible academic entities, to identify the
overall scale of impacts relative to facility size.  To facilitate this
later discussion, Table 3-5 presents average revenue data by entity
type.  The revenue information is based on NAICS data from the
Department of Commerce and the Department of Education.

Table 3-5 Average Annual Revenues of Eligible Academic   SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 Entities by Type of Entity

Type of Eligible Academic Entity	Average Annual Revenue Per Entity
(million 2008$)1	Source Data

4-year CUs	$67.0	U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), Spring 2001.

2-year CUs	$22.9	U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), Spring 2001.

Vocational2	$0.6	U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, average
receipts for NAICS 6115 and 6116.

Teaching Hospital	$91.7	U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census,
average receipts for NAICS 622.

Non-Profit Research Institutes	$4.9	U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic
Census, average receipts for NAICS 5417.

1. Expressed in 2008 dollars, by inflating revenues using the consumer
price index.
http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/hist1913.cfm

2.  Vocational facilities are those with the following NAICS codes:
6115, 61151, 611519, 61161, 611610.

3.5	Limitations

Important limitations concerning the identification of eligible academic
entities and their hazardous waste quantities include:

This analysis relies on biennial reporting data which includes limited
hazardous waste quantities for a number of SQGs and CESQGs.
Furthermore, it is difficult to determine whether reported hazardous
waste quantities are generated in laboratories or other operations at
CUs, non-profit research institutes, and teaching hospitals.  Thus, the
number of entities within the universe of potentially eligible academic
entities is uncertain.

Because many SQGs and all CESQGs are not required to file BR data, there
are limitations in the accuracy of the estimates, especially as related
to waste quantities.  For example, of the 424 eligible CESQGs, the
Agency has hazardous waste quantity data only for 162 CESQGs; waste
quantity estimates for the remaining 262 CESQGs were estimated assuming
that their average waste quantities were the same as the 162 CESQGs with
hazardous waste quantity data.

Average annual revenues by NAICS code may not accurately represent the
eligible academic entities targeted by rule.  For example, eligible
teaching hospitals are a very small subset of NAICS 622, and may not be
well represented in the average revenue estimates.

4.0	MODEL FACILITY ASSUMPTIONS AND UNIT COST ESTIMATES

This section presents a description of the model facility assumptions
and unit cost estimates used to estimate economic impacts experienced by
eligible academic entities under the final rule.  The first subsection
presents a description of the model facility categories developed and
the estimated number of laboratories by category.  The second subsection
presents a description of laboratory hazardous waste handling
operations.  The third subsection presents the methodology for
estimating the number of containers generated by laboratories for
labeling, hazardous waste determination and disposal.  The fourth
subsection presents a description of the unit cost estimates used to
estimate baseline, final rule and incremental model facility costs.
Finally, we discuss key limitations of the analysis presented in this
section.

4.1		Model Facility Categorization

The purpose of this subsection is two-fold: (a) categorize the universe
of eligible academic entities by meaningful operational factors; and (b)
for the cohort of eligible academic entities that fall within each
category, assign to each entity an estimated number of labs.  Concerning
item (1), to accurately estimate the economic effects of the final rule,
we developed model facility categories, based on certain factors that
influence operations and costs.  Specifically, we employ four factors to
categorize eligible academic entities: institution type, laboratory
system size, hazardous waste generator status, and whether a central
accumulation area (CAA) is in operation.  The universe of entities
subject to this categorization scheme is the 1,580 entities identified
in Section 3, which presents a breakout by institution type and
generator status.  In this subsection, we further disaggregate the
universe by the other two factors, laboratory system size and CAA
operation.

Also in this subsection, we use the characterization of system size to
develop an estimate of the number of laboratories per entity within each
category.  The number of laboratories per entity is an important metric
in this analysis, as many of the unit costs are derived on a per
laboratory basis. Later in this section, we derive the unit cost and
impact metrics that match with this facility categorization scheme.
Pairing the relevant unit impact metrics with their corresponding
entities (and the laboratories operated by these entities) yields the
analytic results, as presented in Section 5.

We discuss the basis for each categorization factor below, and then
summarize the results in Table 4-1.  This discussion is followed by the
analysis of the number of labs per entity by category, the results of
which are summarized in Table 4-2.

Categorization by Institution Type

As discussed in Section 3, we divided the universe of eligible academic
entities into five model institution types according to their respective
industry classifications:  4-year colleges and universities, 2-year
colleges and universities, vocational schools, teaching hospitals, and
non-profit research institutes.  This first categorization step
facilitated the collection of relevant hazardous waste generation data
and the comparison of economic impacts associated with the final rule
with available economic revenue data.  Note that, for purposes of cost
impact modeling, non-profit research institutes were combined with
4-year colleges and universities because of similarities in waste
generation statistics and numbers of laboratories.

Categorization by Laboratory System Size

Because costs associated with the final rule vary based upon the number
of labs in an academic system, the institution types were further
subcategorized by the general size of laboratory systems.  Note that the
following system size groupings were developed based upon the best
available data and professional judgment. While serving as a useful
basis for testing the general sensitivity of impact results to
differences in system size, the groupings should be regarded only as an
approximation of the proper distinction between system sizes.  The size
classification is as follows:

4-year and 2-year colleges and universities (CUs), vocational schools,
and non-profit research institutes.  Large and small laboratory system
sizes were derived based on the categories defined in the National
Association of College and University Business Officers, NACUBO 2005
Hazardous Waste Survey (NACUBO Survey).  Based upon the results of this
survey, we defined laboratory systems with greater than 50 labs as large
and laboratory systems with less than or equal to 50 labs as small.

CUs and vocational schools that operate art studios.  Again using the
NACUBO survey, we defined laboratory (studio) systems with greater than
5 studios as large and laboratory (studio) systems with less than or
equal to 5 studios as small.

Teaching hospitals.  Teaching hospitals were divided into four
laboratory system size categories that explicitly link to their
generator status: very small, small, large, and very large.
Specifically, very small and small teaching hospitals are directly
defined by their generator status, with very small teaching hospitals
identified as CESQGs, and small teaching hospitals identified as SQGs.
Teaching hospitals identified as LQGs are grouped as either large or
very large based upon whether: (a) they are located on main
college/university campuses having medical schools conducting medical
research (very large); or, (b) they are not located on main
college/university campuses, but have an affiliation with the local
medical school for teaching residents (large).

Categorization by Generator Status

Given that RCRA generator standards and associated costs vary by
hazardous waste generator status, we further divided the institution
types and laboratory system sizes into LQG, SQG, and CESQG categories.
These generator status categories are imbedded in the teaching hospital
laboratory system size categories.  However, CUs and vocational school
laboratory system sizes require further subdivision by generation
status.  This allows for the identification of cost impacts associated
with changes in RCRA generator status caused by modifications to RCRA
generator standards under the final rule.  To address this issue, we
rely again on data from the NACUBO Survey.  For example, the NACUBO
Survey indicated that:

for large laboratory system CUs, vocational schools, and non-profit
research institutes, 85 percent are LQGs, 23 percent are SQGs, and 4
percent are CESQGs (which we assumed to be zero percent for cost
modeling purposes);

for small laboratory system CUs, vocational schools, and non-profit
research institutes, 15 percent are LQGs, 77 percent are SQGs, and 96
percent are CESQGs (which we assumed to be 100 percent for cost modeling
purposes);

for large laboratory (studio) system CUs, vocational schools, and
non-profit research institutes, 63 percent are LQGs, 33 percent are
SQGs, and 13 percent are CESQGs (which we assumed to be zero percent for
cost modeling purposes); and

for small laboratory (studio) system CUs, vocational schools, and
non-profit research institutes, 37 percent are LQGs, 67 percent are
SQGs, and 87 percent are CESQGs (which we assumed to be 100 percent for
cost modeling purposes).

Categorization by CAA Operation

Finally, costs vary under the final rule depending upon whether an
eligible academic entity operates a central accumulation area (CAA).
The NACUBO Survey data indicate that for CUs and vocational schools, 89
percent of LQGs, 68 percent of SQGs, and 46 percent of CESQGs have a
CAA.  Teaching hospitals were assumed to have similar percentages based
on their generator status, as were non-profit research institutes.

Results of Categorization

We summarize the results of the categorization effort in Table 4-1.  As
the table shows, for example, in the first row concerning the combined
institution type for 4-year CUs and non-profit Research Institutes, 355
entities are categorized as "large" or having greater than 50
laboratories or 5 studios.  Of this total, 245 are LQGs, 218 of which
operate a CAA, while 27 do not.

Estimation of Number of Labs by Category

The NACUBO Survey provided useful information for estimating the number
of labs by relevant category.  For example, for the portion of the
survey relevant to 4-year, 2-year, and vocational schools, the survey
system size categories were: zero labs; less than 5 labs; 5 to 10 labs;
11 to 50 labs; 51 to 100 labs, 101 to 500 labs; 501 to 1000 labs; and
greater than 1,000 labs.  With respect to studios, the survey size
categories were: zero studios, 1 to 2 studios, 3 to 5 studios, 6 to 20
studios, 21 to 50 studios, 51 to 100 studios, and greater than 100
studios.  Using these groupings and related lab counts, we derived
estimates of labs per entity, which are summarized in Table 4-2.  As the
table shows:

For large laboratory system CUs and non-profit research institutes, the
weighted average of the number of laboratories for the top four NACUBO
survey categories calculates to 501 labs for LQGs, and 164 labs for SQGs
(no large CUs are assumed to be CESQGs);

For small laboratory system CUs and non-profit research institutes, the
weighted average of the bottom four NACUBO survey categories calculates
to 22 labs for LQGs, 19 labs for SQGs, and 11 labs for CESQGs;

Concerning large laboratory systems for art studios, the weighted
average equals 24 art studios per CU for LQGs and 17 art studios per CU
for SQGs based on the four top NACUBO survey categories (no large
laboratory system art studios are assumed to be CESQGs); and

Concerning small laboratory system art studios, the weighted average
equals three art studios per CU for LQGs, three art studios per CU for
SQGs, and two art studios per CU for CESQGs based on the bottom four
NACUBO survey categories.

Estimating lab numbers for teaching hospitals was constrained by data
limitations.  To overcome these limitations, we utilized the NACUBO
survey results where relevant (e.g., for very large hospitals), and
further relied upon a review of a small sample of identified hospitals,
other research, and professional judgment.  For example, of the list of
40 CESQG (or very small) hospitals, three facilities listed for
Minnesota are clinics and not hospitals.  Research of Bridgeport
Hospital in Connecticut indicated that it appeared to not be conducting
any medical research.  In general, we assume the list of CESQGs reflects
clinics that have an affiliation with a local medical school for
teaching residents only and do not conduct hospital research.  Clinics
typically have few labs.  We assume that if a hospital laboratory is not
generating enough waste to be a SQG, then it is probably not conducting
enough laboratory work to justify numerous on-site labs and would likely
send most of its lab samples off-site for analysis.  Weighing these
factors, we assume these facilities would have two laboratories to
conduct simple and/or specialized analysis.

For SQG (small) teaching hospitals, we assume these are smaller-scale
hospitals that have an affiliation with a local medical school for
teaching residents and do not conduct hospital research.  Smaller
hospitals likely do not have the full set of labs, focusing on teaching
medical students with no research labs and operating as a smaller,
typical hospital.  Accordingly, they are assumed to average six labs
based on common laboratory services provided at hospitals: hematology;
microbiology; chemistry; blood bank; surgical pathology; and histology.

As noted, teaching hospitals located on main college/university campuses
having medical schools and identified as LQGs were designated as “very
large” teaching hospitals.  Potential lab number estimates were, in
part, derived by reviewing the characteristics of certain LQG hospitals.
 For example, one very large teaching hospital (Cornell University) has
approximately 1,000 laboratories.  Another teaching hospital in Texas,
The Methodist Hospital, is in the process of building 400,000 square
feet of additional laboratory space.  An effective teaching hospital,
requires a mix of clinical, teaching, and research labs, although some
teaching hospitals may have relatively smaller numbers of laboratories.
Balancing these considerations, we assume that very large teaching
hospitals have 501 labs, similar to large CUs.

The remaining list of LQG hospitals were identified as “large”
teaching hospitals not located on main college/university campuses
having medical schools.  We consider these hospitals to operate as a
larger, typical hospital, focusing on teaching medical students with
only a few research labs.  Our review of two facilities (Abbott
Northwestern and Hennepin County Medial Center in Minnesota) revealed,
for example, that they operate as typical large hospitals with few
research labs.  Their labs are focused on conducting tests associated
with patient care.  As such, large teaching hospitals (LQGs) are assumed
to have 15 labs.  Possible hospital laboratories include the above six
laboratories listed for small teaching hospitals, plus four additional
specialized laboratories (cytology; radiology-diagnostic;
radiology-treatment; and autopsy).  In addition to these 10
laboratories, we assume that five duplicate labs would be present at a
large hospital to account for facilities with multiple buildings,
specialized services, or localized labs (e.g., for the emergency room)
based on general research and professional judgment.

Table 4-1.  Categorization of Eligible Academic Entities by Institution
Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and Central Accumulation
Area (CAA) Operation

	LQGs	SQGs	CESQGs	Totals

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

	4-year CU and non-profit Research institutes	Large (>50 labs, > 5
studios)	218	27	75	35	0	0	355

	Small (<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	37	5	251	119	121	142	675

2-year CU

	Large (>50 labs, > 5 studios)	5	1	21	10	0	0	37

	Small (<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	1	0	70	33	39	45	188

Vocational

	Large (>50 labs, > 5 studios)	0	0	4	2	0	0	6

	Small (<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios)	0	0	13	6	17	20	56

Teaching Hospital

	Very Large (> 50 labs)	36	5	0	0	0	0	41

	Large (15 labs)	55	7	0	0	0	0	62

	Small (6 labs)	0	0	82	38	0	0	120

	Very Small (2 labs)	0	0	0	0	18	22	40

Totals	352	45	516	243	195	229	1,580

	397	754	424	1,580

General Table Notes:

- 89% of LQGs, 68% of SQGs, and 46% of CESQGs have a CAA at CUs (NACUBO
2005 Hazardous Waste Survey).

- 11% of LQGs, 32% of SQGs, and 54% of CESQGs DO NOT have a CAA at CUs
(NACUBO 2005 Hazardous Waste Survey).

- 85% of LQGs, 23% of SQGs, and 0% of CESQGs have > 50 labs.  Assumed
weighted average of 501 labs per CU for LQGs and 164 labs per CU for
SQGs based on top four survey categories in NACUBO 2005 Hazardous Waste
Survey.

- 15% of LQGs, 77% of SQGs, and 100% of CESQGs have <= 50 labs.  Assumed
weighted average of 22 labs per CU for LQGs, 19 labs per CU for SQGs,
and 11 labs per CU for CESQGs based on bottom four survey categories in
NACUBO 2005 Hazardous Waste Survey.

- 63% of LQGs, 33% of SQGs, and 0% of CESQGs have > 5 art studios.
Assumed weighted average of 24 art studios per CU for LQGs and 17 art
studios per CU for SQGs based on top four survey categories in NACUBO
2005 Hazardous Waste Survey.

- 36% of LQGs, 61% of SQGs, and 100% of CESQGs have <= 5 art studios.
Assumed weighted average of 3 art studios per CU for LQGs, 3 art studios
per CU for SQGs, and 2 art studios per CU for CESQGs based on bottom
four survey categories in NACUBO 2005 Hazardous Waste Survey.

- For non-profit research institutes we assumed the same distribution of
facilities with and without CAAs and having large/small laboratory
system sizes as 4-year CUs.

- “Very Large” teaching hospitals were identified by inspection of
the list of hospital LQGs determined to be main university campus
hospitals.  These hospitals are assumed to have similar number of labs
to Large 4-year CUs (501 labs) and a similar distribution of hospitals
with and without CAAs as 4-year CU LQGs.

- “Large” teaching hospitals were identified from the list of
hospital LQGs as not being located on a main university campus.  They
are assumed to focus on teaching medical students with only a few
research labs (15 labs).  They operate as a larger typical hospital.
The hospitals are assumed to have a similar distribution of hospitals
with and without CAAs as 4-year CU SQGs.

 - “Small” teaching hospitals were identified from the list of
hospital SQGs.  They are assumed to focus on teaching medical students
with no research labs.  They operate as a smaller typical hospital (6
labs).  The hospitals are assumed to have a similar distribution of
hospitals with and without CAAs as 4-year CU SQGs.

 - “Very Small” teaching hospitals were identified from the list of
hospital CESQGs.  They are assumed to focus on teaching medical students
with no research labs (2 labs).  They operate as a small specialty
hospital or clinic.  The hospitals are assumed to have a similar
distribution of hospitals with and without CAAs as 4-year CU CESQGs.

Table 4-2. Number of Labs Per Eligible Academic Entity by Institution
Type

 and Laboratory System Size

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	Institution	Laboratory System Size	Number of Labs
(CU labs and art studios)

LQG	SQG	CESQG

4-year CU

and

Non-profit Research Institute	Large 	>50 labs	501	164	NA

> 5 studios	24	17

Small 	<= 50 labs	22	19	11

<= 5 studios	3	3	2

2-year CU	Large 	>50 labs	501	164	NA

> 5 studios	24	17

Small 	<= 50 labs	22	19	11

<= 5 studios	3	3	2

Vocational	Large 	>50 labs	501

	164

	NA

> 5 studios	24	17

Small	<= 50 labs	22	19	11

<= 5 studios	3	3	2

Teaching Hospital	Very Large (> 50 labs)	501	NA	NA

	Large (15 labs)	15	NA	NA

	Small (6 labs)	NA	6	NA

	Very Small (2 labs)	NA	NA	2

4.2 	 Laboratory Hazardous Waste Operations

Having categorized the universe of eligible academic entities and the
number of laboratories each may operate, we turn to briefly characterize
the general laboratory hazardous waste operations for eligible academic
entities under the baseline and the final rule.  Differences in
operations between the baseline and final rule drive the incremental
results of the analysis.

Operations under Baseline

As hazardous waste is generated through normal operations in the
laboratory, the contents of the hazardous waste within the container are
identified on the label or the label is marked “hazardous waste,”
and placed in an accumulation hood for storage by a laboratory worker.
The hazardous waste is handled in a conservative manner by assuming all
generated waste is hazardous.  Placing the hazardous waste in the hood
with a label naming the constituents is consistent with the current
regulations for satellite accumulation areas (40 CFR 262). Colleges and
universities, non-profit research institutes, and teaching hospitals
with and without CAAs will accumulate hazardous wastes in the same way
in the laboratory setting.

For eligible academic entities with a CAA, an environmental health and
safety (EH&S) staff person is assumed to visit each laboratory on a
periodic basis, make necessary hazardous waste determinations, and
prepare a full hazardous waste label including the necessary information
regarding the contents, hazardous waste determination, and accumulation
date.  The label is required prior to the transfer to the on-site CAA.
The satellite accumulation area (i.e., in the laboratory) is assumed to
never exceed the accumulation limit of 55 gallons.  Hazardous waste
accumulated in the CAA is assumed to be stored for the maximum storage
time allowed by 40 CFR 262.34 (90 days for LQGs or 180 days for SQGs).
An accumulation time of 360 days is assumed for CESQGs for the following
reasons:

CU laboratories likely have an annual disposal as part of a regular
school year cycle;

To avoid accumulating more than one quart of acute waste and potentially
being subject to SQG/LQG standards, we assumed pick-ups from laboratory
clean outs on a regular basis; and

CU CESQGs generate an average of 0.55 tons annually based on 2005
Biennial Report data.  If they cleaned out labs every two years they
will be generating 1.1 tons, which is close to the SQG lower limit.  As
such, a shipment every two years seemed too long and possibly subjected
them to SQG standards.

Finally, we assume the hazardous waste is collected and lab-packed by
contractors from the CAA.

For eligible academic entities without a CAA, the EH&S staff person will
perform the HW determination and label the containers.  The hazardous
wastes will be collected and lab-packed by contractors directly from the
laboratory.  For cost modeling purposes, the contractors are assumed to
collect hazardous waste on a schedule similar to the maximum storage
duration regulated by 40 CFR 262.34 (90 days for LQGs or 180 days for
SQGs) or an assumed 360 days for CESQGs for the reasons presented above.

The hazardous waste is assumed to be incinerated (at a hazardous waste
incinerator) for all LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs.  Concerning this
assumption, we recognize that CESQG waste is considered non hazardous
and can be disposed in a solid waste landfill.  However, most waste
generated by laboratories is liquid waste, based on 2005 Biennial report
data reported by LQGs.  Landfill operators in general will not accept
liquid waste.  In addition, some states ban the placement of liquid
CESQG waste in landfills.  Finally, 40 CFR 258.28 establishes a
restriction on liquids placed in municipal solid waste landfills, unless
it is bulk household waste, other than septic waste (40 CFR
258.28(a)(1)), or, a "small container similar in size to that normally
found in household waste" (40 CFR 258.28(b)(1)). It would be unlikely
that the chemical containers holding liquid waste at academic labs would
be similar in size to that normally found in household waste.
Furthermore, containers from academic laboratories will include those
used to accumulate/store waste and would be restricted from placement in
municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR 258.28(b)(2)).  Therefore, CESQG
waste is assumed to be incinerated in our general model.

Operations under Final Rule

The final rule is intended to encourage eligible colleges and
universities, non-profit research institutes, and teaching hospitals to
regularly conduct pick-ups of unwanted materials, which will reduce
environmental and health risks associated with laboratory operations.
The final rule will allow laboratory personnel to label the generated
waste as “unwanted material” and mark the accumulation start date.
Subsequently, the EH&S staff will make the hazardous waste
determination, either before the material is removed from the laboratory
or within four days of arrival at an on-site CAA or TSDF.

Another aspect of the final rule is that unused chemicals/waste (i.e.,
hazardous wastes with P- and U-listings, as well as unused
characteristic HW) generated as a result of a single clean-out (i.e.,
one clean-out per laboratory per 12 months) will not count in
determining RCRA generator status.  Because of this aspect of the rule,
colleges and universities, non-profit research institutes and teaching
hospitals may be able to retain/maintain their typical generator status
if the reason the generator status was raised is because of a clean-out
event (for example, moving from SQG to LQG or even CESQG to LQG due to
generation of hazardous waste, especially acute hazardous waste, from a
clean-out of laboratories).

For on-site management, a lower generator status relieves reporting
requirements and increases allowed storage time for hazardous waste.
However, for the purposes of off-site management of hazardous waste
(i.e., disposal), all hazardous waste must be counted towards generator
status in determining whether the hazardous waste is regulated when it
goes to off-site management.  The Agency does not have data sufficiently
detailed to estimate the number of colleges and universities, non-profit
research institutes, and teaching hospitals so affected.  Therefore, we
employ certain assumptions concerning the monthly generation of all
hazardous wastes, the type and quantity of hazardous waste generated as
a result of laboratory clean-outs, and the risk management practices
employed by eligible academic entities.

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

Additionally, colleges and universities, non-profit research institutes,
and teaching hospitals that are normally not LQGs, except when
generating hazardous wastes from laboratory clean-out events, may
benefit by retaining their typical generator status, because a
significant portion of the wastes generated during laboratory clean-outs
are believed to be acute hazardous wastes.  Hazardous waste that is
commercial chemical products (i.e. P- and U- listed hazardous wastes and
unused characteristic hazardous wastes) generated during qualified
laboratory clean-outs are not counted in determining generator status.

Table 4-3 presents estimates of the potential number of colleges and
universities assumed to be able to retain their typical generator status
as a result of the final rule (27% of LQGs and 9% of SQGs).  These are
entities that may transition to a higher generator status under baseline
conditions.  Non-profit research institutes and teaching hospitals are
assumed to have a similar potential for changing their generator status;
thus, the same assumption is used that 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent
of SQGs in this category will change generator status.  The assumptions
made in deriving the estimates are significant, as noted in the
footnotes to the table.  In addition, the Agency believes the estimated
number of facilities changing status may be inflated because of the lack
of sufficient data to refine estimates and the assumptions underlying
the estimates.

The costs for training, performing hazardous waste determinations and
disposal of hazardous waste are not anticipated to be affected by the
rule; therefore, incremental costs related to these factors are
estimated to be zero.  We note, however, that although we do not
estimate any incremental training costs attributable to the final rule,
the final rule may engender benefits related to enhanced, and better
targeted, training, as discussed in Section 6 of this report.

Operations under Alternative Options

As noted in Section 2, two alternative options were evaluated as part of
the rulemaking process, Options A and B.  Note that these options are
not regulatory options considered in the final rulemaking.  Rather, they
were developed as part of this analysis to help illustrate the likely
impacts of this final regulation.  Under the more stringent option
(Option A), additional costs are attributable to a decrease in the
allowed accumulation time of waste in the laboratory (3 months versus 6
months under the base option).  The cost estimate incorporates a shorter
accumulation time of only 1 month.  To the extent laboratories
accumulate material for longer than 1 month, costs would be lower for
them than under the cost estimate prepared for Option A.  This change
affects the eligible academic entities with large laboratory system
sizes and having no CAA.  Under the less stringent option (Option B),
costs are removed as the result of increasing the allowed accumulation
time of waste in the laboratory (12 months versus 6 months under the
base option) and removing notification and a lab management plan
requirement.  The other cost assumptions for Options A and Option B are
described in Section 2 of this document.

Table 4-3. Estimated Number of Colleges and Universities Projected to
Retain Their RCRA Generator Status Due to the Final Laboratory Waste
Rule Cleanout Provisions

Generator Status

# of Colleges and Universities

% LQGs Generating 1,000-2,000 KG/YR Total Hazardous Waste

% LQGs Generating 2,000-8,000 KG/YR Total Hazardous Waste 1/

% LQGs Generating >12 lbs of Acute Hazardous Waste Per Year 2/

Percentage of Colleges and Universities That May Potentially Change
Generator Status 3/

% SQGs Generating 100-200 KG/YR Total Hazardous Waste

LQG

286

5

27

83

27

SQG

615

9

NA

NA

9

1/ For purposes of this analysis, we assumed that some portion of the CU
LQGs generating, on average, less than 67 percent of the annual
threshold level of hazardous wastes, were defined as LQGs rather than
SQGs because of acute hazardous wastes generated from laboratory
clean-outs; the 67 percent threshold is used based on professional
judgment, since the Agency has no data on the variability of monthly
total hazardous waste generation at colleges and universities.  We
further assume that colleges and universities generating more than this
amount would likely exceed the threshold generation level in at least
one month during the year (e.g., LQGs generating >6,700 kg of hazardous
waste annually would exceed 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in one or more
months, making them LQGs regardless of acute hazardous waste they may
generate).  Accordingly, even excluding any acute waste generated during
qualified laboratory clean-outs from counting toward their generator
status determination would not affect their status due to exceeding
1,000 kg of total hazardous waste during a given month. However, LQGs
generating less than 6,700 kg of total hazardous waste may benefit by
retaining their typical lower generator status because acute hazardous
waste generated during qualified laboratory clean-outs is not considered
in determining generator status and thus the clean-out event won’t
episodically increase their generator status for that month.

2/ Estimated percentage of colleges and universities generating more
than 12 pounds of acute hazardous waste per year based on results from a
survey conducted by the National Association of College and University
Business Officers.  The breakpoint of 12 pounds was used because this
was the category limit defined and used in the NACUBO Survey.  It is
assumed that colleges and universities generating more than 12 pounds of
acute hazardous wastes per year generate at least one kilogram of this
acute hazardous waste in a given month during a qualified laboratory
clean-out, and this acute hazardous waste is what changes their
generator status from SQG to LQG; this assumption has been made only for
those colleges and universities generating between 2,000 and 8,000
kilograms of total hazardous waste in a given year.  Using the estimate
of 12 pounds of acute hazardous waste, as a proxy for the colleges and
universities likely to exceed the one-month total generation of one kg
due to qualified laboratory clean-outs, is based on professional
judgment.  The Agency does not have data on the acute hazardous waste
generated from laboratory clean-outs.

3/ For LQGs, this is calculated as 5% plus 27% times 83%, resulting in
approximately 27% of LQGs which may benefit from maintaining their usual
lower generator status.  The percentages of LQGs and SQGs maintaining
their typical generator status of 27 percent and 9 percent,
respectively, were applied to teaching hospitals and non-profit research
institutes, but these values are not presented in this table.

Containers Generated Per Laboratory

The annual number of containers generated per laboratory is an important
input to this analysis, as this quantity directly affects the cost
estimate for labeling and hazardous waste determination requirements.
The estimation of this quantity is also difficult, as facilities have
flexibility in the type and size of containers they use, and no direct
data source of container generation is available.

Thus, we derived an estimate of annual container generation by entity
category using the following general assumptions.  First, we assume a
constant generation rate per lab (approximately seven pounds per month
per lab for LQGs, approximately one pound per month per lab for SQGs,
and approximately three pounds per month for CESQGs).  Note that the
CESQG per lab rate of approximately 3 pounds per lab is higher than SQGs
at approximately 1 pound per lab because there are more labs assumed for
SQGs (181 labs) per CU than CESQGs (13 labs).  Over all labs, CESQG CUs
generate 0.26 tons per year and SQG CUs generate 0.86 tons per year.
Second, we employ a base assumption concerning container size in which
we estimated that one-third are pint-size, one-third are quart-size, and
one-third are gallon-size containers.  Note, however, that we presume
alternative container sizes (one or two gallon containers) for certain
entity categories.  Finally, we assumed that EH&S staff would have to
make quarterly visits per laboratory for a LQG, and annual visits per
laboratory for SQGs and CESQGs.  This basic approach yields the
following general formula to determine the number of containers to label
per trip:

(Annual waste quantity converted to pints / Number of labs) / Number of
trips to the lab per year = number of pint containers, (which is then
converted to an allocation of container use assuming that 1/3 are pint
containers, 1/3 are quart containers, and 1/3 are gallon containers).

Applying this approach to a large CU LQG, for example, we find that the
average entity in this category generates 22.62 tons of hazardous waste
per year, which equals approximately 43,000 pints.  Dividing this amount
by the 525 laboratories and studios in the category, and further by the
assumed 4 trips to the lab per year, equals 21 pint containers at this
entity per trip.  Assuming the 1/3 container allocation noted above,
this yields 7 pint, 3.5 quart containers, and 0.88 gallon containers, or
approximately11 containers at this entity per trip.

Table 4-4 summarizes the container estimation results for all entity
categories.  As shown, the estimated annual number of containers to be
labeled “unwanted material” and used for making hazardous waste
determinations is estimated at greater than 7 million per year.  Also,
see Appendix B for a more detailed presentation of these results.

Table 4-4.  Annual Number of Waste Containers Generated by  SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1  Institution Type and Generator Status

Type of Eligible Academic Entity	LQG	SQG	CESQG

Total Number of Annual Containers

4-year CU & NP Research	5,835,375	140,250	71,799	6,047,424

2-year CU	142,875	39,385	22,932	205,192

Vocational	0	7,520	10,101	17,621

Teaching Hospital	744,894	5,040	400	750,334

Total	6,723,144	192,195	105,232	7,020,571

4.4	Unit Cost Estimates

In prior subsections, we categorized the number of eligible academics
entities that may be affected by the final rule and generally
characterized their likely hazardous waste management practices under
the baseline and final rule.  We also supplemented this discussion with
a derivation of the number of labs within each entity's laboratory
system and the number of waste containers it is likely to generate.  We
now pivot to discuss the unit cost estimates that will be applied to
these entity and operational characteristics to derive the analytic
results.

Specifically, the unit cost estimates developed to estimate the
baseline, final rule, and incremental annual costs associated with this
regulation are discussed in this subsection.  Based on this analysis,
different components of the final rule and their impact on laboratory
management practices may engender countervailing impacts relative to the
baseline, including cost increases, cost savings, or no net costs.  For
example, components of the final rule that this analysis indicates will
increase costs include (listed from highest to lowest cost):

Labeling containers as “unwanted materials”;

Recordkeeping requirements for lab cleanouts;

Lab management plan preparation and maintenance; and

Notification.

In contrast, components of the final rule that the model indicates will
yield a cost savings include the following (listed from highest to
lowest cost savings):

Transportation and manifest costs are reduced at facilities without CAAs
as a result of increased efficiencies created by regularly scheduled
pickups from lab cleanouts and implementation of the Lab Management
Plan; this, in turn allows for an increase in the number of labs visited
daily for waste collection and a reduction in the number of hazardous
waste shipments;

Transportation and manifest costs are reduced through changes in
generator status, allowing longer accumulation times and resulting in
fewer shipments of hazardous waste;

Travel costs to laboratories are avoided at facilities with a CAA with
the allowance that academic facilities can make HW determinations at the
CAA;

Biennial reporting costs are avoided from changes in generator status,
given only LQGs are required to report;

General administration burden costs are reduced from changes in
generator status; and

Contingency planning burden costs are reduced from changes in generator
status given requirements are fewer for SQGs compared to LQGs.

Components of the final rule having zero net costs include: training;
hazardous waste determination; and hazardous waste disposal.

The following discussion presents the data and assumptions used in
developing unit cost estimates for these regulatory components.  A
summary of the unit cost estimates is presented in Table 4-5.  See
Appendix C for a presentation of labor rates used in developing the unit
cost estimates, as well as a discussion of the methodology employed to
annualize before-tax compliance costs.

Table 4-5.  Summary of Unit Costs (2008 dollars)

Cost Category	Baseline Unit Cost	Final Rule Unit Cost

Labeling Containers by Laboratory Worker as Hazardous or Unwanted
Material	$1.49/container	$1.76/container

Labeling Container by EH&S for HW Determination	$5.49/container
$5.49/container

Recordkeeping for Laboratory Clean Outs	N/A	$4.29/container

Laboratory Management Plan (LMP)	N/A	$441/year for LMP*

$98/year for update**

Reading the Rule	N/A	$9/year*

Notification	N/A	$17/year*

On-Site Travel from CAA and Laboratories for HW Determination and
Labeling	CUs and Non-profit research institutes:

$0.25/container for LQGs

$0.55/container for SQGs

$0.13/container for CESQGs

Teaching hospitals:

$0.25/container for  very large

$0.05/container for large

$0.39/container for small

$0.55/container for very small	N/A

Off-site Transportation (Shipment)	$401.73/shipment	$401.73/shipment

Manifests	$35.01/manifest for LQGs

$34.43/manifest for SQGs

$34.43/manifest for CESQGs	$35.01/manifest for LQGs

$34.43/manifest for SQGs

$34.43/manifest for CESQGs

Biennial Reporting	$333/LQG

$0/SQG

$0/CESQG	$333/LQG

$0/SQG

$0/CESQG

General Administration	$772/LQG

$515/SQG

$257/CESQG	$772/LQG

$515/SQG

$257/CESQG

Contingency Planning	$228/LQG*

$0/SQG

$0/CESQG	$228/LQG*

$0/SQG

$0/CESQG

Training	$1,602/EH&S staff

$714/lab manager

$163/lab worker	$1,602/EH&S staff

$714/lab manager

$163/lab worker

Hazardous Waste Disposal	$102.34/drum for purchase

$483.10/drum for lab packing

$6.69/drum for loading

$2,192 for incineration	$102.34/drum for purchase

$483.10/drum for lab packing

$6.69/drum for loading

$2,192 for incineration

* Cost annualized over 10 years assuming a 7% discount rate.

** Cost annualized over 3 years assuming a 7% discount rate.

Components of Final Rule Increasing Costs

Four components were identified as causing an increase in costs under
the final rule.  These components include container labeling, laboratory
clean out recordkeeping, lab management plan preparation, and
notification.  The unit cost estimates developed to evaluate these
components are discussed below.

Labeling

Currently, labeling of the hazardous waste containers is assumed to be
conducted by the EH&S staff at the laboratory on a periodic basis based
on generator status.  The container would have been labeled with the
chemical contents at the time of generation by a laboratory worker or
manager.  The EH&S staff will re-label the containers as hazardous waste
if appropriate (i.e., confirm the hazardous waste determination) and
include the required information on the label prior to moving the
hazardous waste to the CAA.  Under the final rule, the laboratory worker
will label the containers as “unwanted material” and include other
information to allow trained professional to make a determination if the
contents are hazardous waste.  The unwanted materials will then be
transferred to the CAA for the EH&S staff to make the HW determination.
The EH&S staff will re-label the containers as hazardous wastes as
necessary.

The cost for a label is estimated using the online purchase site
www.uline.com.  The label currently used for identifying the contents of
a container as hazardous waste or otherwise identifying the contents of
the container is estimated to cost $0.13 per label (Uline model number
S-369).  It is assumed that the same label will be used to comply with
the final Subpart K requirement as space is available to identify the
contents, accumulation start dates, and any other comments regarding the
hazardous nature of the contents.

The cost basis for labeling a container is estimated using the
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.10
Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, January 2008.  A label applied in
the current regulatory environment is estimated to have a labor burden
of five minutes per label.  The rule is estimated to add approximately
one minute to the labeling labor burden (6 minutes per label).  The
actual cost of the labeling depends on who is completing the label.  The
following formula was used to determine the loaded, inflated labor
rates:

Label cost (0.13 per label) + time to fill out label (5 or 6 minutes) *
Labor rate for EH&S or Laboratory Worker ($64.37 or $16.34 per hour)

The current (baseline) regulation labeling cost is calculated as the
following:

0.13 per label + 0.0833 hr * $16.34 per hour = $1.49 per label for lab
workers

0.13 per label + 0.0833 hr * $64.37 per hour = $5.49 per label for EH&S
staff.

The final rule labeling cost is calculated as the following:

0.13 per label + 0.10 hr * $16.34 per hour = $1.76 per label for lab
worker

0.13 per label + 0.0833 hr * $64.37 per hour = $5.49 per label for lab
worker

Table 4-6 presents the labeling alternatives and costs.

Table 4-6.  Labeling Costs

Employee Classification

Labeling Scenario	Cost per Container Labeled (2008$)

Current (Baseline) Regulations

Laboratory Worker

At the laboratory as hazardous material

$1.49

EH&S Staff

At the laboratory in conjunction with a hazardous waste determination

$5.49

Final Rule

Laboratory Worker

At the lab as unwanted material, the contents of the container, and the
accumulation start date.

$1.76

EH&S Staff

At CAA by EH&S staff in conjunction with a hazardous waste determination

$5.49

Recordkeeping for Laboratory Clean Outs

As part of the final rule, eligible academic entities must document
qualified laboratory clean-outs and maintain records of clean-outs in
their files.  Eligible academic entities will file only one record per
laboratory clean-out.  The final rule requires that an eligible academic
entity document a laboratory clean-out by identifying the name of the
laboratory being cleaned out, the date the clean-out begins and ends,
and the total volume of hazardous waste generated by the clean-out. The
laboratory clean-out recordkeeping cost is estimated on a per container
basis.  The recordkeeping cost is assumed to require, on average, 2
minutes per container for documentation and 2 minutes per container for
filing by an EH&S staff person ($4.29 per container). This unit cost is
multiplied by the number of containers generated from a laboratory
clean-out to derive the per laboratory recordkeeping cost for a
clean-out.  Ten percent of the containers generated by a laboratory are
assumed to be generated from laboratory clean-outs annually. The per
laboratory cost is then multiplied by the number of labs cleaned out
annually to derive the per eligible academic entity cost.  We assume
that a qualified lab clean-out is not conducted at each laboratory every
year.  Only 20 percent of the laboratories at each eligible academic
entity are assumed to be cleaned out every year.

Laboratory Management Plan

A laboratory management plan is assumed to be drafted from an existing
chemical hygiene plan required by OSHA.  The redrafting of the chemical
hygiene plan to include a laboratory management plan is estimated to
require 40 hours of technical drafting, and review by an oversight
committee consisting of four persons.  A total of eight hours is
estimated for the oversight committee.  The labor burden is estimated
using the opinion of Dr. Bruce Backus, Assistant Vice Chancellor,
Environmental Health and Safety at Washington University in St. Louis.
Costs were estimated using the labor rates presented in Appendix C.  The
total cost of initially preparing the laboratory management plan is
estimated at $3,098 (2008$) per eligible academic entity.  This cost is
incurred once and annualized over ten years for an annual burden of
$441.  This cost includes 40 hours of EH&S staff labor and eight hours
of Professor Labor for review.  An annual labor burden of four hours of
EH&S labor is estimated to maintain and update the laboratory management
plan.  The cost for updating the laboratory management plan is estimated
as $257 every three years.  This cost was annualized over three years
for an annual estimated cost of $98.

Reading the Rule and Notification

A one-time cost of notifying the regulating agency regarding the opt-in
decision of the facility is required to be subject to the final
regulation.  Eligible academic entities will also incur a one-time cost
of one hour to read the rule.  Under the proposed rule facilities were
to provide the information required in a letter.  For the final rule,
facilities are required to submit a completed Subtitle C Site
Identification Form (EPA Form 8700-12 or commensurate state form) with
the opt-in check box marked. The cost for the notification requirement
used in this analysis is the EPA Form 8700-12, providing the necessary
information.  Hourly burden estimates for both the letter notification
and notification using EPA Form 8700-12 are presented in Table 4-7.  For
the letter notification approach, the total cost to read the rule,
prepare the notification letter, and retain the notification in the
facility records is estimated at $103 (2008$).  This one time cost was
annualized over ten years for an annual estimated cost of $15.  The cost
for preparing the EPA Form 8700-12 and retaining it in the college or
university records is estimated at $117 plus $64 to read the rule.  The
total cost to prepare EPA Form 8700-12 and retain in records is
estimated at $181.  This one time cost was annualized over ten years for
an annual estimated cost of $26.

Table 4-7.  Notification Costs

Employee Classification

Employee Position	Letter Notification 1/

(proposed rule)	EPA Form 8700-12 Notification 2/

(final rule)

Annual Labor Burden (hrs)

Managerial

Management

0.50

0.64

Technical

EH&S Staff

0

1.06

Clerical

Clerical

0.25

0.14

1/ Source: Estimates derived based on best professional judgment.

2/ Source: Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request
Number 261.14 "Notification of Regulated Waste Activity" - September 1,
2002.

Components of Final Rule Decreasing Costs

Five components were identified as creating a cost savings under the
final rule.  These components include off-site transportation,
manifests, on-site travel, biennial reporting, general administration,
and contingency planning.  The unit cost estimates developed to evaluate
these components are discussed below.

Off-Site Transportation

The transportation costs are estimated on a per shipment basis using
RACER 2003 and inflated to 2008 dollars.  A shipment transportation cost
is estimated as $401.73 (2008$).  This is a minimum shipment cost for
shipments of up to 40 drums.  The shipments are assumed to be
transported a distance of less than 150 miles.  For transportation
distances greater than 200 miles, the per unit shipment cost will
decrease.  However, the facilities are assumed to be near urban centers
that will have a commercial hazardous waste TSDF within 150 miles.
Therefore, the economic savings for trips greater than 150 miles is
assumed not to apply.

The cost for transportation of hazardous wastes is primarily dependant
on the on-site accumulation duration requirements. The shorter the
allowed duration for accumulating hazardous wastes at a lab, the greater
the number of hazardous waste collection events and shipments. Under the
current regulatory environment, the hazardous wastes from laboratories
are assumed to be transferred to a CAA on a quarterly basis for LQGs and
annually for SQGs and CESQGs; under the final rule SQGs and CESQGs are
assumed to transfer the waste semi-annually.  For facilities without a
CAA, the wastes are disposed on a quarterly basis for LQGs, and twice a
year for SQGs, both under baseline and the final rule. The disposal rate
is assumed to be once a year for CESQGs under baseline and twice a year
for CESQGs under final rule requirements, creating an increase in
transportation costs for CESQGs.

For LQGs and SQGs, transportation cost savings result from changes in
generator status allowing longer accumulation times and increased
efficiencies in the number of laboratories visited per day for entities
without CAAs under the final rule.  If entities maintain their typical
generator status of an SQG rather than LQG, their hazardous waste
accumulation time increases from 90 days to 180 days resulting in fewer
shipments (2 shipments instead of 4 shipments) of waste transported off
site per year.  Similarly, if entities maintain a generator status of
CESQG rather than SQG, their hazardous waste accumulation time increases
from 180 days to 360 days resulting in fewer shipments (1 shipment
instead of 2 shipments) of waste transported off site per year.

In addition, the final rule is expected to improve efficiencies in the
movement of waste and handling of wastes in laboratories resulting from
more regularly scheduled removals of unwanted materials and
implementation of the laboratory management plan.  Under the baseline,
it is assumed that EH&S staff can visit 8 labs per day to make hazardous
waste determinations and have the waste packed, drummed, and shipped off
site for transportation.  Due to the efficiency gains noted above for
the final rule, it is assumed that EH&S staff can visit 10 labs per day,
resulting in fewer shipments for entities that ship wastes directly from
laboratories (i.e., have no CAA).

Manifests

The final rule may affect hazardous waste manifesting costs for
facilities with and without CAAs.  Furthermore, if a facility is able to
maintain a status of CESQG (rather than LQG or SQG) under the rule, then
that facility will benefit from lower waste management costs, including
manifest costs.  We assume that CESQGs are manifesting their waste
because it will be a requirement for disposing their waste in an
off-site incinerator.

In general, under the current hazardous waste regulations, hazardous
wastes are tracked through the use of a hazardous waste manifest which
accompanies each waste shipment.  Manifesting costs were obtained from
the Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number
801.15 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management
Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System.” December
30, 2004.  Also, costs for making and maintaining copies are included.
A manifest is completed by an EH&S staff member for facilities with and
without CAAs.  The manifest costs presented in Table 4-8 are estimated
using the labor rates presented in Appendix C multiplied by the labor
burden presented in the table.

Table 4-8.  Manifest Costs

Generation Status

Technical Labor Burden Hours per Manifest	Clerical Labor Burden Hours
per Manifest

Total Cost per Manifest (2008$) Prepared by EH&S Staff

	LQG

0.4196

0.3020

$35.01

	SQG/CESQG

0.4191

0.2815

$34.43

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

For LQGs, a pickup of waste is assumed for each laboratory on a
quarterly basis, based on 90 day accumulation time limits, under both
current regulation and final rule.  For SQGs, transfer of laboratory
wastes occurs semi-annually, based on 180 day accumulation time limits,
under both the current regulation and final rule.  For CESQGs, transfer
of laboratory wastes is assumed to occur annually, based on assumed 360
day accumulation time limit discussed previously, under current
regulations, and semi-annually (180 days) as a new requirement under the
final rule.

A manifest is required for the hazardous waste removed from the
laboratories.  That is, the number of drums lab-packed on each day is
assumed to be a shipment and requires a manifest.  For entities without
CAAs, this means each laboratory is visited either on a quarterly,
semi-annual or annual basis. Table 4-9 presents the number of manifests
per year and the number of labs visited per day for waste collection for
both current regulation and the final rule.  The table demonstrates how
the number of collection days (which represent the number of annual
shipments and manifests) decreases between the current regulation and
final rule for each model facility.  Specifically, the number of
collection days (manifests) are calculated using the following
methodology using LQG w/o CAA under current regulation as an example:

[501 labs/8 labs/day => 63 days + 24 studios/8 studios/day = 3 days] x 4
pickups per year for LQGs = 264 collection days per year (equivalent to
manifests per year and shipments per year)

Table 4-9.  Number of Collection Days, Manifests, or Shipments Per Year

Generator Status and Institution Type	Baseline (Current) Regulation
Final Rule	Incremental Change

	Number of Labs Visited per Day for Waste Collection	Number of
Collection Days per Year or Off-site Shipments per Year or  Manifests
per Year	Number of Labs Visited per Day for Waste Collection	Number of
Collection Days per Year or Off-site Shipments per Year or Manifests per
Year	Number of Labs Visited per Day for Waste Collection	Number of
Collection Days per Year or Off-site Shipments per Year or Manifests per
Year*

LQG w/o CAA

Large CU and non-profit research institute (501 labs & 24 art studios)	8
264	10	216	2	(48)

Small CU and non-profit research institute (22 labs & 3 art studios)	8
252	10	204	2	(48)

Very large teaching hospitals (501 labs)	8	16	10	16	2	0

Large Teaching hospitals (15 labs)	8	12	10	8	2	(4)

LQG with CAA

Large CU and non-profit research institute (501 labs & 24 art studios)
N/A	4	N/A	4	N/A	0

Small CU and non-profit research institute (22 labs & 3 art studios)	N/A
4	N/A	4	N/A	0

Very large teaching hospitals (501 labs)	N/A	4	N/A	4	N/A	0

Large Teaching hospitals (15 labs)	N/A	4	N/A	4	N/A	0

SQG w/o CAA

Large CU and non-profit research institute (164 labs & 17 art studios)	8
48	10	38	2	(10)

Small CU and non-profit research institute (19 labs & 3 art studios)	8	8
10	6	2	(2)

Small teaching hospitals (6 labs)	8	2	10	2	2	0

SQG with CAA

Large CU and non-profit research institute (164 labs & 17 art studios)

	N/A	2	N/A	2	N/A	0

Small CU and non-profit research institute (19 labs & 3 art studios)	N/A
2	N/A	2	N/A	0

Small teaching hospitals (6 labs)	N/A	2	N/A	2	N/A	0

CESQG w/o CAA

Small CU and non-profit research institute (11 labs & 2 art studios)	8	3
10	6	2	3

Very small teaching hospital (2 labs)	8	1	10	2	2	1

CESQG with CAA

Small CU and non-profit research institute (11 labs & 2 art studios)	N/A
1	N/A	2	N/A	1

Very small teaching hospital (2 labs)	N/A	1	N/A	2	N/A	1

* Parenthetical numbers represent negative values.

On-Site Travel from CAA and Laboratories for HW Determination and
Labeling

 ADVANCE \d4 The current satellite accumulation area regulations require
that the hazardous waste determination and hazardous waste container
labeling occur at the point of generation. An EH&S staff person is
assumed to perform the HW determination and labeling prior to the
on-site transfer of the hazardous waste to the CAA or pickup by a
contractor for disposal.  For facilities with and without a CAA in the
baseline, it is assumed the HW determination and labeling is performed
by EH&S staff at the laboratory.

Specifically, a 20-minute trip per day is assumed for a one-mile trip by
vehicle.  A per mile cost of $0.505 is estimated based on the Federal
Register published Amendment 2008-02 to the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR). The total travel cost per container prepared for a LQG is $0.25,
for a SQG is $0.55, and for a CESQG is $0.13. The following formula was
used to determine the total travel cost per label:

[Travel time (20 minutes/day/60 minutes/hr) * Labor rate for EH&S staff
($64.37 per hour) + Miles/day (1 mile/day) * travel reimbursement rate
($0.505/mile)] / Number of containers labeled per lab / Number of labs
visited per day

The current regulation (baseline) travel costs are calculated as:

[(0.333333 hr/day * $64.37 per hour) + (1 miles/day * $0.505/mile)]/11
labels at LQGs/lab / 8 labs visited/day = $0.25 per container for LQGs

[(0.333333 hr/day * $64.37 per hour) + (1 miles/day * $0.505/mile)]/5
labels at SQGs/lab / 8 labs visited/day = $0.55 per container for SQGs

[(0.333333 hr/day * $64.37 per hour) + (1 miles/day * $0.505/mile)]/21
labels at CESQGs/lab / 8 labs visited/day = $0.13 per container for
CESQGs

Similar assumptions are made for EH&S staff to travel to conduct the HW
determination at hospitals with and without a CAA.  The EH&S staff is
assumed to prepare nine labels per trip per lab for a very large LQG
hospital, twelve labels for a large LQG hospital, seven labels for a
small SQG hospital, and five labels for a very small CESQG hospital.
This assumption is based on quarterly visits per laboratory for a LQG
and annual visits per laboratory for SQGs and CESQGs, a constant
generation rate per lab (six pounds per month for very large LQGs, 185
pounds per month for large LQGs, 27 pounds per month for small SQGs, and
19 pounds per month for very small CESQGs), and the average container
size is 5.3 gallons.  The cost for a 20-minute trip per day is assumed
including charges for a one mile trip by vehicle.  The total travel cost
per container for a very large hospital is $0.25, for a large hospital
$0.05, for a small hospital $0.39, and for a very small hospital $0.55.

Under the final rule for eligible academic entities with CAAs, travel of
an EH&S to the laboratory for the HW determination and labeling is not
necessary; therefore, the final rule costs for travel is zero.  For
entities without CAAs, an EH&S is assumed to continue to travel to the
laboratory for HW determination and labeling.  The cost equations for
the final rule are the same as those listed above except 10 labs are
visited per day.

Please note that we only modeled EH&S staff traveling from the office to
the lab to make the HW determination, not to transfer the hazardous
wastes from the lab to the CAA.  That is, the model does not include the
transfer of wastes from the lab to the CAA in either the baseline or
final rule because costs are assumed to be the same under the baseline
and final rule and thus no incremental costs would exist under the final
rule.

Biennial Reporting

Biennial reporting is required by RCRA in 40 CFR 262.41 for large
quantity generators.  The final rule does not directly effect the
requirements for biennial reporting; however, eligible academic entities
may be able to maintain their typical generator status and avoid the
reporting requirements and reduce their annual expenditures, as
previously discussed.

The cost for the biennial reporting is estimated using the Supporting
Statement for EPA Information collection Request 976.13 “The 2007
Hazardous Waste Report” - September 18, 2007.  The ICR presents the
annual labor burden for reading and preparing the Site Identification
Form and Generation and Management Form GM.  The median number of Form
GM pages reported for LQGs, 11 pages, is used to determine the annual
burden for filling out the Form GM pages.  Costs were estimated using
the labor rates presented in Appendix C.  The total annual burden for
LQGs is estimated as $333 (2008$).  The annual labor burden used to
develop the unit cost estimate is summarized in Table 4-10.

Table 4-10.   Biennial Reporting Costs

Employee Classification	Employee Position	Annual Labor Burden (hrs)

Managerial

Management

1.37

Technical

EH&S Staff

3.57

Clerical

Clerical

0.61

General Administration

Annual labor burden for the miscellaneous management of the generator
status, record-keeping, assuring compliance with regulations for the
corresponding generator status, etc., is included in the general
administration costs.  The hourly burden is based on professional
judgment.  Costs were estimated using the labor rates presented in
Appendix C.  A LQG has an estimated annual burden of 12 hours of
technical EH&S staff time, 8 hours for a SQG, and 4 hours for a CESQG.
The estimated annual costs are $772, $515, and $257, respectively, in
2008$.

Contingency Planning

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

Contingency planning costs cover the requirements as stated in 40 CFR
264 Subpart D relating to the development of a contingency plan.  The
basis for the estimates was taken from the Estimating Costs for the
Economic Benefits of RCRA Noncompliance, prepared for the Office of
Regulatory Enforcement, USEPA, dated September 1994, and presented in
Table 4-11.  Facilities generating more than 1,000 kilograms per month
of hazardous waste (i.e., Large Quantity Generators) are required to
prepare and maintain a contingency plan.  Costs were estimated using the
identified labor rates.  The cost includes labor for a drafter, process
technician, an engineer, and a manager, for a total expense of $1,601
(2008$).  This cost is incurred once.  The cost for contingency planning
was annualized over 10 years for an annual cost of $228 (2008$).  Costs
incurred for updating the contingency plan are included in the General
Administrative cost.

Table 4-11.   Contingency Planning Costs

Employee Classification	Employee Position	One Time Labor Burden (hrs)

Managerial

Management

3

Technical

EH&S Staff

16

Drafter

Drafter

3

Process Technician

Furnace, Kiln, Oven Operators

11

Components of Final Rule with No Net Costs

Three components were identified as creating no net costs under the
final rule.  These components include training, hazardous waste
determination, and hazardous waste disposal.  The unit cost estimates
developed to evaluate these components are discussed below.

Training

Subpart K requires training commensurate with the responsibilities of
the laboratory worker.  Under current OSHA regulation 1910.1450,
training for laboratory employees that manage or handle hazardous
materials is required.  Currently there are 26 states and territories
with OSHA-compliant job safety and health programs.  All employers in
these states must provide employees with effective information and