Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other Impacts For the Proposed Revised Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K  Academic Laboratories Final Report Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division Office of Solid Waste U. S. Environmental Protection Agency April 7, 2006 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The EPA recognizes DPRA Incorporated ( E 1500 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101) for the overall organization and development of this report. DPRA developed the methodology, database, and analytical model that allowed for the comprehensive analyses of the regulatory scenarios presented in this report. Rachel Alford and Lyn D. Luben of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, provided guidance and review. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1 Background and Purpose of Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.2 Need For Regulatory Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2.3 Scope of Study and Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 10 2.4 Limitations of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 10 3.0 POST SECONDARY ACADEMIC LABORATORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.1 Four Year Colleges and Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.2 Two Year Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 3.3 Vocational Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 3.4 Overview of Potentially Affected Colleges and Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 4.0 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1 Overview of Colleges and Universities Modeled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.2 General Model Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 4.3 Annualization Methodology of Before Tax Compliance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 4.4 Cost Model Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 4.5 Summary Tables Presenting Baseline Impact and Incremental Costs . . . . . . . 4 20 5.0 COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.1 Aggregate Cost Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.2 Average College and University Cost Impacts As a Percent of Revenue . . . . . 5 7 5.3 Expected Adoption Rates and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 5.4 Aggregate Cost Impacts Under Regulatory Options A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 11 5.5 Impacts on State Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 18 6.0 QUALITATIVE BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 7.0 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 Appendix A   Impact Tables Corresponding With the High College and University Hazardous Waste Generation Estimate Appendix B   Impact Tables Corresponding With a Three Percent Discount Rate for Annualizing Costs Appendix C   Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Analysis REFERENCES 1 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Economic Assessment ( EA) was conducted to determine the potential impacts of the EPA's proposal to revise rules regarding the management of hazardous waste generated by college and university laboratories, as well as to evaluate alternatives to the chosen approach. The analysis was conducted per the requirements of Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) as amended by Executive Order 13258 ( 68 FR 9385, February 28, 2002), which requires that regulatory agencies evaluate whether a new regulation potentially constitutes a significant regulatory action.

Under Section 3( f)( 1) of Executive Order 12866, the EPA is required to make an initial determination regarding whether any proposed regulatory action constitutes a significant regulatory action. Based on the findings presented in this report, we believe that this regulatory action, as proposed, does constitute a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, and the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.

The proposed rulemaking changes a number of requirements regarding the management of hazardous waste. EPA is proposing this optional generator requirement ( in Part 262 Subpart K) to provide a more flexible and protective set of regulations that address the unique nature of hazardous waste generation in college and university laboratories. One of the main purposes of the proposed rulemaking is to provide colleges and universities the discretion to make the hazardous waste ( HW) determination for unwanted materials generated in the laboratory at a location other than the laboratory and at a time after its initial generation. The proposed rule also specifies additional performance based standards for waste accumulation, labeling prior to HW determination, personnel training requirements and container management. The proposal also requires that colleges and universities develop a laboratory management plan, specifying how the colleges and universities will comply with the performance based standards. Finally, to encourage more frequent laboratory cleanouts of unwanted and unused materials from laboratories, the rule excludes these wastes in determining RCRA generator status, under certain guidelines.

The Agency has identified a total of 1,811 colleges and universities in operation in the U. S., which generate laboratory wastes and may be affected by the proposed rulemaking. Of this total, 333 are large quantity generators ( LQGs) and 1,478 are small quantity generators ( SQGs). The proposed rule is optional, which means that individual colleges and universities may choose to be regulated under Subpart K, or continue to operate under existing regulations. Furthermore, because the rule is optional, states with authority to administer the RCRA program may adopt the proposed rule ( when it is finalized) or continue to rely on existing rules. Because the rule is optional, we believe only some states will adopt the rule, and additionally colleges and universities will only choose to be subject to the rule if it is deemed to be in their interest. For purposes of the EA, it is assumed that only colleges and universities that would experience a reduction in hazardous waste management costs would choose to be subject to the rule.

In order to estimate impacts, model colleges and universities were developed based on information regarding various factors including number of laboratories, whether the college or university used a 1 Email Re: FW: EPA Laboratory Waste Management rule to Craig Simons of DPRA from Dr. Bruce Backus, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Environmental Health and Safety at Washington University in St. Louis, August 1, 2005; Email Re: ISU Cost Estimates to Rachel Alford, EPA from William M. Diesslin CHMM, CSP, Assistant Director Dept. of Environmental Health & Safety, Iowa State University, May 16, 2005.

2 For example numerous SQGs generated substantially less than 1,200 kilograms, implying that hazardous waste generated during one or more particular months exceeded 100 kilograms, forcing them into the SQG status for those months. The assumption made was that this was due, at least in some cases, to hazardous waste generated during laboratory clean outs, and consequently the college or university may benefit from a lower RCRA generator status under the proposed rule. Similarly, and especially important for LQGs generating less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste each month, hazardous wastes generated during laboratory clean outs were assumed to include acute toxic ( especially P) wastes; while a thorough analysis of biennial report data was inconclusive 1 2 90/ 180 day hazardous waste storage area ( hereafter referred to as a central accumulation area ( CAA)) for accumulating hazardous wastes generated at individual laboratories, and RCRA HW generator status. Under baseline conditions, it was assumed that environmental health and safety ( EH& S) personnel travel to the laboratories to make the HW determination; accordingly one of the major cost savings was in travel time associated with going to the laboratories. An alternative management scenario practiced by numerous colleges and universities is having EH& S personnel ( or equivalent) at the laboratories to make the hazardous waste determination. While this alternative scenario was not costed, the expected savings would have been associated with reductions in personnel training ( rather than travel), effectively requiring fewer EH& S personnel to make the HW determination. Other major costs expected to be incurred by the colleges and universities that choose to be subject to Subpart K include costs for the development and maintenance of LMPs and, additional costs associated with labeling prior to having waste sent from the laboratories to the CAA. While the proposed rule specifies certain personnel training requirements, these costs are not believed to be significant, since industry contacts indicated that the colleges and universities, as part of their existing policies, already have significant training requirements for laboratory, EH& S and other personnel similar to those in the proposed rule. Based on contacts1, typical practices are believed to include basic classroom instruction for students, which addresses EPA requirements for HW management. This instruction is repeated for each course taken that generates hazardous waste. Laboratory workers who are college and university employees typically receive several hours of formal training on specific OSHA and EPA requirements, in either classroom or on line sessions, with additional laboratory specific training provided by the laboratory supervisor. EH& S personnel also are required to undergo initial training, with annual refresher courses covering OSHA and EPA topics. The equivalent would need RCRA training to complete hazardous waste identifications.

Because the proposed rule specifies that hazardous waste generated during laboratory clean outs ( up to one clean out per laboratory per 12 month period) will not count toward generator status, assumptions were made that a number of colleges and universities would benefit from this clause and be able to maintain a lower HW generator status ( e. g., moving from LQG to SQG). Hazardous waste data from the biennial reporting system indicated that a number of colleges and universities generated hazardous waste on an annual basis that was substantially less than 100 kg for SQGs and 1,000 kg for LQGs. 2 Additionally, some LQGs may only be LQGs due to acute toxic wastes, which may be because P wastes were frequently mingled with other wastes so that definitive quantitative estimates were not possible, there were at least some instances when P waste quantities appeared to affect the generator status of the colleges and universities.

1 3 generated during laboratory clean outs. Consequently it was assumed that up to eight percent of SQGs and 30 percent of LQGs would benefit from a lower RCRA status under the rule. These assumptions regarding generator status changes were derived with limited information regarding the waste generated as a result of laboratory clean outs, and may not accurately reflect the actual number of colleges and universities which will ultimately benefit from a lower generator status.

The total quantity of hazardous waste generated by the affected colleges and universities, excluding remediation wastes was estimated based on 2001 biennial reporting data. In total, the affected colleges and universities generated a total of 11,628 tons of hazardous waste during 2001. Of this waste quantity, laboratory hazardous wastes are estimated to range from approximately 3,400 to 6,000 tons per year. Only the management of laboratory generated hazardous wastes are affected by the proposed rulemaking.

For purposes of the EA, estimates are presented assuming that only a limited number of states codify the rule, making it possible for colleges and universities only within their respective states to be able to be subject to the rule. As previously noted, the proposed rule is non HSWA, leaving states with jurisdiction over their RCRA program the option to adopt the rule within their own programs, and hence, the option for colleges and universities to individually choose to participate in Subpart K or remain regulated under current regulations. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that states which have historically adopted at least 85 percent of RCRA rule changes will actually adopt the laboratory waste rule within a five year period. This means that it is assumed that 29 states and Puerto Rico will adopt the rule and 21 states will not adopt the rule. The percentage of rule change adoptions is based on the number of required federal rulemakings for which states received authorization, divided by the number of required federal rulemakings promulgated historically through June 30, 2003, a total 209 rulemakings. The Agency is assuming that states which have adopted at least 85 percent of the 209 rulemakings are a good proxy for the actual number of states that will adopt the proposed laboratory waste rule within a five year period.

As a result of this assumption, only 173 LQGs and 666 SQGs are estimated to be in states that adopt the rule. Further limiting the impacts of the rule is the fact that individual colleges and universities will have the opportunity to choose to be subject to the rule, or continue operating under the existing rules. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that only those colleges and universities which expect to experience a decrease in cost will actually choose to be subject to the rule. The number of colleges and universities expected to experience a decrease in cost is also affected by assumptions regarding the annual volumes of laboratory hazardous waste generated, which are estimated to range 3,400 to 6,000 ton per year. Consequently estimates of the number of colleges and universities expected to be subject to the rule are presented as a range. Overall an estimated 195 to 296 colleges and universities are expected to benefit from the proposed rule. With the higher estimated waste volume of 6,000 tons per year, only 195 colleges and universities are estimated to be subject to the 3 Impact estimates presented in this Executive Summary were completed using a seven percent real discount rate to annualize costs. An alternative assessment using a three percent discount rate was also completed indicating modest increases in annualized cost savings and numbers of affected colleges and universities. The results of the alternative assessment are discussed further in Chapter 5, with tabular results presented in Appendix B.

1 4 proposed rule; assuming the 3,400 ton waste volume estimate, 296 colleges and universities would choose to be subject to the rule. Of the 195 to 296 colleges and universities, the number of LQGs range from 45 to 146, while the number of SQGs is 150. Colleges and universities with CAAs are more likely to benefit from the proposed rule than colleges and universities that do not have CAAs.

Of the colleges and universities that are projected to benefit from the rule, 99 to 107 are also expected to benefit from a change in RCRA generator status. Of this total, 45 to 53 LQGs and 54 SQGs are expected to choose to be subject to the rule due in part to the projected change in generator status.

The aggregate annualized cost savings associated with the proposed rule are estimated to range from $ 0.6 to $ 2.9 million for all colleges and universities that choose to be subject to Subpart K. 3 The proposed rule is intended to reduce the potential for environmental releases of hazardous wastes. Under the proposal, colleges and universities will develop a Laboratory Management Plan ( LMP). A plan would create the flexibility to enable colleges and universities to more effectively manage unwanted materials because it would be targeted to the needs of the college or university. In addition to the LMP, the proposed rule specifies instruction requirements for students, and training requirements for laboratory workers, individuals involved in the on site transportation of potentially hazardous wastes and individuals making the hazardous waste determination. Training requirements are expected to reduce the potential for release of hazardous waste. The Agency believes that the proposed rule will also encourage more frequent clean outs of laboratories of unwanted and unused reagents, reducing the potential for accidental or mistaken releases into the environment of the reagents. The overall goal is to promote environmental protection and public health through safer management of college and university laboratory hazardous waste. The Agency has not monetized or quantitatively estimated the human health or environmental benefits, but anticipates that such benefits would be less than $ 100 million per year. Additional data are necessary to make a firm determination as to whether there will be quantifiable net benefits from the proposed rule.

The Agency also considered alternative options, with Option A being more stringent, specifying shorter maximum accumulation times, greater time restriction on allowed exceedance of 55 gallons of waste, and other restrictions. While the impacts of Option A, assuming 100 percent adoption were much costlier at $ 13.4 million than the proposed rule, the impacts on the number of colleges and universities actually choosing to be subject to the proposed rule decreased only slightly, with the estimated range being from 190 to 291 colleges and universities.

Alternative Option B was less stringent than the proposed rule, with more relaxed requirements for LMPs, and the elimination of notification requirements. The number of colleges and universities 1 5 choosing to be subject to Option B was estimated to at 681, with no variation due different waste quantity estimates.

We also examined possible impacts associated with relevant legislation other than RCRA, and various Executive Orders. These include: the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA), Executive Order 13132, ( Federalism), Executive Order 13045 ( Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), Executive Order 12898 ( Environmental Justice), Executive Order 13175 ( Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), Executive Order 13211 ( Energy Effects), Executive Order ( Limited English Proficiency), and Regulatory Takings. The proposed rule is not expected to result in significant impacts, as defined under UMRA, or any of the executive orders mentioned above. 4 Backus, Bruce. 1999. Efforts to Deal with Burdensome Impacts of Hazardous Waste Regulations on Research Institutions. Presented at the 17th Annual College and University Hazardous Waste Conference.

2 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION EPA is proposing alternative generator requirements applicable to college and university laboratories which provide a flexible and protective set of regulations that address the unique nature of hazardous waste generation in college and university laboratories. The flexibility in the proposed rule will allow laboratories at college and universities the discretion to determine the most appropriate and effective method of compliance with today's proposed performance based requirements. Additionally, this proposed rule grants colleges and universities the choice to manage their hazardous wastes in accordance with today's alternative set of regulations or remain subject to the existing generator regulations.

Executive Order No. 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) as amended by Executive Order 13258 ( 68 FR 9385, February 28, 2002) requires that regulatory agencies determine whether a new regulation constitutes a significant regulatory action. A significant regulatory action is defined as an action likely to result in a rule that may:

C Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; or C Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; or C Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or C Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.

This analysis is primarily designed to address the economic significance of the proposed rule. To accomplish this, EPA estimated the costs and potential economic impacts upon affected industries.

2.1 Background and Purpose of Rulemaking The proposed rulemaking addresses the unique nature of hazardous waste generation at college and university laboratories. For example hazardous wastes generated in laboratories are typically small volume wastes involving a wide variety of chemicals. 4 Because there are so many wastestreams, it is difficult for laboratory students to make the hazardous waste determination. One of the main purposes of the proposed rulemaking is to provide colleges and universities the discretion to make 2 2 the hazardous waste determination for unwanted materials generated in the laboratory at a location other than the laboratory and at a time after its initial generation. Therefore, the Agency is proposing that chemicals or other materials that are no longer needed, wanted or usable in the laboratory be referred to as unwanted materials. The Agency prefers this term over the term laboratory waste, which was used in the University Laboratories XL, because, some fraction of the unwanted materials may turn out not to be solid or hazardous waste.

The proposed rulemaking changes a number of requirements regarding the management of hazardous waste. A summary of the current and proposed changes is presented in Table 2 1.

2.2 Need For Regulatory Action Current EPA regulations were modeled for industrial facilities. College and university laboratories differ from industrial applications in several key ways. College and university laboratories generally have a large number of points of generation, each producing a small amount of waste. Very little hazardous waste in college and university laboratories is generated by individuals professionally trained in hazardous waste management. Current regulations were created for generators with few wastestreams, generating large quantities of waste, by employees that are professionally trained in hazardous waste management techniques.

The greatest difficulty college and university laboratories face in managing hazardous waste under existing regulations is making the RCRA hazardous waste determination in the laboratory. Students generating waste are frequently unqualified to make this determination. Changes to the regulations would provide flexibility in where the hazardous waste determination is made, and yet preserve environmental protection. Specifically, it would allow the hazardous waste determination to be made in the central accumulation area or on site TSDF, or allow the hazardous waste determination to be made in the laboratory, but at a point in time after initial generation of the waste. The hazardous waste determination would be performed by RCRA trained personnel.

The proposed changes would create a flexible, protective set of regulations that address the unique nature of hazardous waste generation in college and university laboratories. The proposal would allow college and university laboratories the discretion to determine a method of compliance best suited to their circumstances, and promote environmental protection and public health through safer management of laboratory wastes. Specifically, the provision to develop and implement a laboratory management plan would improve coordination and integration of hazardous waste management procedures and enhance environmental awareness. A performance based approach would ensure better environmental results by facilitating RCRA hazardous waste determinations, requiring that they be made by RCRA trained professionals. Additionally, this approach would promote the protection of human health and the environment by ensuring that all unwanted materials are safely managed prior to the time that the hazardous waste determination is made.

The proposed changes are also needed to make explicit the training requirements for personnel working in laboratories, including instruction for students and training for laboratory workers. While 5National Association of College and University Business Officers, NACUBO 2005 hazardous waste survey, http:// www. nacubo. org/ documents/ business_ topics/ HazardousWasteSurveyResults. pdf.

2 3 many colleges and universities already provide some level of RCRA training to minimize risk as well as address liability/ insurance and OSHA requirements, the proposed regulation formalizes the requirements to ensure more universal application.

Finally the proposed rulemaking encourages periodic laboratory clean outs of unused and unwanted materials. Currently, laboratory clean outs are relatively infrequent. For example, a recent survey by the National Association of College and University Business Officers indicated that 25 percent of SQGs do no laboratory clean outs. 5 One reason for this is that during a clean out, fairly large volumes of hazardous waste may be generated at one time ( as compared with the baseline of generation for that laboratory), including those listed as acutely hazardous. College and university laboratories generally operate as satellite accumulation areas, and therefore must promptly ( within 3 days) remove any acutely hazardous waste that exceeds one quart in volume. Furthermore, a generator's status ( as LQG, SQG or CESQG) is determined in part by the volume of acutely hazardous waste they generate in a calendar month. During a laboratory clean out, college and university laboratories may generate acutely hazardous wastes in relatively large quantities, because many unused bottles of reagents are all at once deemed to be hazardous waste. This is problematic for small quantity generators, potentially forcing them into large quantity generator status with attendant additional requirements and recordkeeping burden. The proposed rule eliminates the disincentive for laboratory clean outs by allowing one clean out per 12 months for each laboratory, without the hazardous waste generated from the laboratory clean out counting toward the RCRA generator status. 2 4 Table 2 1. Comparison of Current and Proposed Regulations for Laboratories Management Item Current Regulations 262.34 ( c) Proposed Regulations Subpart K Option A ( more stringent) Option B ( less stringent)

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

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

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

( only 7 chemicals)) Same as proposed rule Same as proposed rule Table 2 1. Comparison of Current and Proposed Regulations for Laboratories Management Item Current Regulations 262.34 ( c) Proposed Regulations Subpart K Option A ( more stringent) Option B ( less stringent)

2 5 maximum number of days that laboratory can exceed maximum volume 3 days, excess of 55 gallons must be removed 10 days, all 55 gallons ( or 1 qt reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material)

must be removed shorter time period ( 7 days) longer time period ( 14 days) Table 2 1. Comparison of Current and Proposed Regulations for Laboratories Management Item Current Regulations 262.34 ( c) Proposed Regulations Subpart K Option A ( more stringent) Option B ( less stringent)

2 6 container labeling " hazardous waste" or " other words that identify the contents of the container" Cautionary compliance label  label must have the words unwanted material.

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

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

but must be associated with the container.

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

2 7 training of laboratory personnel and instruction for students none Performance based standards:

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

° Requires training for students in:

labeling, container mgmt., and emergency resp.

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

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

compatible with waste, wastes must not be stored near incompatible wastes Same as proposed rule Table 2 1. Comparison of Current and Proposed Regulations for Laboratories Management Item Current Regulations 262.34 ( c) Proposed Regulations Subpart K Option A ( more stringent) Option B ( less stringent)

2 8 laboratory management plan none required to discuss implementation of performance based standards. Contents of plan not enforced against. contents of laboratory management plan enforced against no laboratory management plan record keeping none ° strives to minimize additional recordkeeping  one time notification  labels  training records for LQGs only  laboratory clean out records ° Potential additional records identified by commenters Same as proposed rule laboratory clean outs none laboratory clean outs encouraged, but not mandatory  1 laboratory clean out per laboratory per 12 months:

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

2 9 notification no notification requirement  notification of RA or state director required to be subject to Subpart K  notification required, if college or university chooses to return to existing regulations Subsequent site ID form ( EPA Form 8700 12) no notification for opt in or opt out optional rule current regulations not optional in states that adopt the rule, individual colleges/ universities can either choose this rule, or remain regulated under current regulations Same as proposed rule Same as proposed rule 2 10 2.3 Scope of Study and Data Sources This study is an assessment of the potential impacts to colleges and universities with qualifying laboratories who choose to be subject to the proposed rule. The scope of the study involves profiling the entities affected, estimating both baseline and incremental costs for hazardous waste management under the existing and proposed regulations, respectively, and assessing the economic impacts. The industries affected by the proposed rulemaking are identified in Table 2 2.

Table 2 2 Entities Potentially Affected by the Proposed Rulemaking College or University Type NAICS Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools 61131 Junior Colleges and Technical Institutes 61121 Technical and Trade Schools Other Technical and Trade Schools 611519 Other Schools and Instruction Fine Art Schools 61161 All other miscellaneous schools and instruction 611699 The primary source of information regarding hazardous waste generation and management comes from the EPA's Biennial Reporting System database. Other data and information sources are listed in the references section.

2.4 Limitations of Analysis The Agency did not complete a formal RCRA 3007 survey of college and university laboratories. Consequently, for this assessment it was necessary to rely on publicly available data which resulted in numerous limitations, primarily related to several key areas. These limitations are briefly summarized below.

° This analysis does not capture all of the variables that may affect a generator's decision to manage hazardous wastes under the proposed rule. College and university laboratories manage hazardous wastes with substantial variations in procedures and staff making hazardous waste determinations, in regarding laboratory clean outs, use of subcontractors and other factors which could not all be modeled.

° The analysis relies heavily on information generated through a survey by the National Association 2 11 of College and University Business Officers. It is not known how representative the colleges and universities surveyed are to the colleges and universities impacted by the proposed rule.

° This analysis relies on estimates of revenues for colleges and universities which are derived from various sources. Estimates may not accurately reflect actual current revenues of the specific colleges and universities with laboratories.

° This analysis relies on biennial reporting data which does not include hazardous waste quantities for a number of SQGs. Furthermore it is difficult to determine whether hazardous waste reported is generated in college and university laboratories or other college and university operations. 3 1 3.0 POST SECONDARY ACADEMIC LABORATORIES Colleges and universities are classified under the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code 611, educational services. Colleges and universities laboratories can be found in several sub categories, including 61131 ( four year colleges and universities), 61121 ( two year colleges), 61161 ( fine art schools), and 611519 ( other technical and trade schools). These classifications reflect four year colleges and universities, two year colleges, fine art schools and other technical and trade schools, respectively.

This chapter is made up of four individual sections: 1) overview of four year schools; 2) overview of two year schools; 3) vocational schools categorized as " all other miscellaneous schools and instruction," " fine arts schools," and " other technical and trade schools"; and 4) an overview of potentially affected colleges and universities.

3.1 Four Year Colleges and Universities Four year colleges and universities, represented by NAICS Code 61131, " comprises establishments primarily engaged in furnishing academic courses and granting degrees at baccalaureate or graduate levels."

The data in table 3 1, show the size of four year schools, based on revenue, in 1997. According to the data there were a total of 2,296 four year schools in 1997.

Table 3 1 Revenue of 4 year College and Universities Revenue Number of 4 yr C/ U's ( NAICS 61131) Percent of 4 yr C/ U's Cumulative Percent of Total C/ U's $ 0 1M 124 5.4% 5.4%

$ 1 3M 236 10.3% 15.7%

$ 3 6 M 202 8.8% 24.5%

$ 6 10M 203 8.8% 33.3%

$ 10 15M 208 9.1% 42.4%

$ 15 30M 423 18.4% 60.8%

$ 30 50M 286 12.5% 73.3% Table 3 1 Revenue of 4 year College and Universities Revenue Number of 4 yr C/ U's ( NAICS 61131) Percent of 4 yr C/ U's Cumulative Percent of Total C/ U's 3 2 $ 50 100 M 282 12.3% 85.5%

$ 100M 150M 95 4.1% 89.7%

$ 150M 1B 215 9.4% 99.0%

$ 1B 2B 20 0.9% 99.9%

>$ 2B 2 0.1% 100.0%

Totals 2296 100.0%

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census. ( 2002 Census data not available)

Table 3 2 shows the sources of revenue for all 2296 four year colleges and universities. The largest source of revenue for 4 year colleges and universities was from tuition and fees, accounting for just over 27 percent of total revenue. State appropriations accounted for nearly 20 percent of total revenue. 6 U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System ( IPEDS), Spring 2001. Number of institutions: http:// nces. ed. gov/ quicktables/ Detail. asp? Key= 1067 Revenue: http:// nces. ed. gov/ das/ library/ tables_ listings/ show_ nedrc. asp? rt= p& tableID= 1163 3 3 Table 3 2 Sources of Revenue for 4 yr Colleges and Universities Source of Revenue Aggregate Revenue for All C/ U's ( millions of $) Percent of Total Revenue Tuition and fees 53,660 27%

State Appropriations 39,497 20%

Federal Grants & Contracts 22,591 11%

Hospital Revenues 18,851 10%

Auxiliary Enterprises 18,573 9%

Private Gifts, Grants & Contracts 11,757 6%

Other Sources 7,470 4%

Sales & Services of Educational Activities 5,527 3%

State Grants & Contracts 5,124 3%

Endowment Income 4,534 2%

Local Appropriations 3,911 2%

Independent Operations 3,497 2%

Federal Appropriations 2,017 1%

Local Grants & Contracts 1,139 1%

Total 198,148 100%*

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, financial survey, 1997.

* Percentages may not add due to rounding.

The average revenue per 4 year college or university is estimated in 2000 as $ 53.3 million. 6 Expressed in 2004 dollars, by inflating revenues using the consumer price index, average 7 http:// minneapolisfed. org/ Research/ data/ us/ calc/ hist1913. cfm 8 U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System ( IPEDS), Spring 2001. Number of institutions:

3 4 revenues per 4 year college or university are estimated at $ 58.5 million. 7 3.2 Two Year Colleges Two year colleges, represented by NAICS Code 61121, " comprises establishments primarily engaged in furnishing academic, or academic and technical, courses and granting associate degrees, certificates, or diplomas below the baccalaureate level." Table 3 3 shows the sizes of two year colleges based on revenue.

Table 3 3 Revenue of 2 year Colleges Revenue Number of 2 year Colleges ( NAICS 61121) Percent of 2 year Colleges Cumulative Percentage of 2 year Colleges $ 0 1 M 147 9.0% 9.0%

$ 1 5M 459 28.0% 37.0%

$ 5 10M 280 17.1% 54.1%

$ 10 15M 221 13.5% 67.6%

$ 15 25M 219 13.4% 81.0%

$ 25 50M 212 12.9% 93.9%

$ 50 100M 88 5.4% 99.3%

$ 100 150M 8 0.5% 99.8%

$ 150 250M 2 0.1% 99.9%

$ 250 450M 2 0.1% 100.0%

Total 1638 100.0%

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census ( 2002 Census data not available)

The average revenue per 2 year colleges is estimated in 2000 as $ 22.9 million. 8 Expressed in http:// nces. ed. gov/ quicktables/ Detail. asp? Key= 1067 Revenue: http:// nces. ed. gov/ das/ library/ tables_ listings/ show_ nedrc. asp? rt= p& tableID= 1163 9 http:// minneapolisfed. org/ Research/ data/ us/ calc/ hist1913. cfm 3 5 2004 dollars, by inflating revenues using the consumer price index, average revenues per 2 year colleges are estimated at $ 25.1 million. 9 3.3 Vocational Schools Potentially affected vocational schools comprise all other miscellaneous schools and instruction ( NAICS Code 611699), fine arts schools ( NAICS Code 61161), and other technical and trade schools ( NAICS Code 611519).

3.3.1 Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction Other miscellaneous schools and instruction, represented by NAICS Code 611699, " comprises establishments primarily engaged in offering instruction ( except business, computer, management, technical, trade, fine arts, athletic, language instruction, tutoring, and automobile driving instruction.) Also excluded from this industry are academic schools, colleges, and universities."

Table 3 4 shows the average annual revenue of other miscellaneous schools and instruction as well as their taxable status.

Table 3 4 Average Annual Revenue of Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction Tax Status Number of Schools Average Revenue/ Yr Taxable Schools 1,582 $ 714,600 Tax Exempt Schools 1,515 $ 660,576 Taxable and Tax Exempt Schools 3,097 $ 688,172 Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census 3.3.2 Fine Art Schools Fine Art schools, represented by NAICS Code 61161, " comprises establishments primarily engaged in offering or providing instruction in the arts, including dance, art, drama and music." 3 6 Table 3 5 shows the average revenue of Fine Art schools as well as their taxable status.

Table 3 5 Average Annual Revenue of Fine Art Schools Tax Status Number of Schools Average Revenue/ Yr Taxable Schools 7,266 $ 209,852 Tax Exempt Schools 1,934 $ 384,736 Taxable and Tax Exempt Schools 9,200 $ 246,615 Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census 3.3.3 Other Technical and Trade Schools Other technical and trade schools, represented by NAICS Code 611519, " comprises establishments primarily engaged in offering job or career vocational or technical courses ( except cosmetology and barber training, aviation and flight training, and apprenticeship training.) The curriculums offered by these schools are highly structured and specialized and lead to job specific certification."

Table 3 6 shows the average annual revenue of other technical and trade schools as well as their taxable status.

Table 3 6 Average Annual Revenue of Other Technical and Trade Schools Tax Status Number of Schools Average Revenue/ Yr Taxable Schools 2,682 $ 1,275,477 Tax Exempt Schools 641 $ 1,089,183 Taxable and Tax Exempt Schools 3,323 $ 1,239,541 Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census 3.3.4 Average Annual Revenues of Vocational Schools Average annual revenues for potentially affected vocational schools, which includes schools classified under NAICS Codes 611699, 61161, and 611519, are estimated at approximately $ 545,400. Expressed in 2004 dollars, by inflating revenues using the consumer price index, 10 http:// minneapolisfed. org/ Research/ data/ us/ calc/ hist1913. cfm 3 7 average annual revenues per school are estimated at $ 572,700.10 3.4 Overview of Potentially Affected Colleges, Universities, and Vocational Schools Colleges, universities and vocational schools ( NAICS codes 61131, 61121, 611610, and 611519) targeted by the rule will have the option to be subject to the rule, or continue to operate in compliance with the existing regulation. In this section, the estimated number of colleges and universities that may choose to operate under the proposed regulation are documented.

3.4.1 Universe of Potentially Affected Colleges, Universities, and Vocational Schools In 2001 there were a total of 1,811 college, university, and vocational school LQGs and SQGs generating hazardous waste. Of these totals, 333 are LQGs and 1,478 are SQGs, including 505 SQGs with no available data on hazardous waste generation. Details regarding the actual number of colleges, universities, and vocational schools by type of institution are presented in Table 3 7.

Table 3 7 Number of Colleges, Universities, and Vocational Schools With Laboratories Type of College, University, or Vocational School LQG SQG Total Number of Colleges, Universities, and Vocational Schools 4 year 314 847 1,161 2 year 13 334 347 Vocational 6 297 303 Total 333 1,478 1,811 Source: 2001 Biennial Reporting Data The total quantity of hazardous waste generated by the affected colleges and universities is presented in Table 3 8. In total, the affected colleges, universities, and vocational schools generated a total of 11,628 tons of hazardous waste during 2001, excluding remediation wastes. Of this waste quantity, laboratory hazardous wastes are estimated to range from 3,397 to 6,003 ton per year. 3 8 Table 3 8 Total Annual Quantity of Hazardous Waste Generated by Colleges and Universities and Estimated Hazardous Waste Generated From Laboratory Operations Generator Status Total Hazardous Waste Generated1 ( tons/ yr) Estimated Laboratory Hazardous Waste Generated ( tons/ yr) Estimated Laboratory Hazardous Waste as a Percentage of Total Hazardous Waste (%) Average Laboratory Hazardous Waste Generated Per College or University ( tons/ yr)

Small Quantity Generators2 2,723 480  911 18  33 0.32  0.62 Large Quantity Generators3 8,905 2,917  5,092 33  57 8.8  15.3 Total 11,628 3,397  6,003 29  52 1.9  3.3 1/ Total hazardous waste generated, excluding remediation waste. Includes hazardous waste generated at hospitals and by other college and university operations, including laboratories.

2/ The lower bound of the laboratory hazardous waste quantity estimate include only those waste streams that contained the word " lab" in the biennial reporting database ( excluding hazardous waste generated at college and university hospitals). The upper bound estimate includes all hazardous wastes identified with the word " lab",

as well as all other hazardous wastes reported in the biennial reporting database that have no accompanying description. Estimated volumes are for all 1,478 SQGs. BRS data only includes hazardous waste quantities for 973 SQGs. Total waste generated by the other 505 is assumed to equal the average quantity for the 973 SQGs reporting waste quantities.

3/ The lower bound of the laboratory hazardous waste quantity estimate include only those waste streams that contained the word " lab" in the biennial reporting database ( excluding hazardous waste generated at college and university hospitals). The upper bound estimate includes all hazardous wastes identified with the word " lab",

as well as all other hazardous wastes reported in the biennial reporting database that have no accompanying description. Estimated volumes represent 333 LQGs.

Source: Biennial Reporting Data, 2001.

For purposes of this analysis, the number of laboratories per college or university is important to estimating impacts associated with the proposed regulation. The only data available are from a survey conducted by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, which was relied upon to estimate the number of laboratories per college or university. Estimates derived from this source are presented in Table 3 9. 3 9 Table 3 9 Estimated Number of Laboratories at Colleges and Universities by Generator Status Number of Laboratories < 10 10 20 21 50 51 100 101 500 > 500 Total Generator Status Number of Colleges and Universities Small Quantity Generators 341 352 375 216 171 23 1478 Large Quantity Generators 11 3 25 36 122 136 333 Total 352 355 400 252 293 159 1811 Source: National Association of College and University Business Officers, NACUBO 2005 hazardous waste survey, http:// www. nacubo. org/ documents/ business_ topics/ HazardousWasteSurveyResults. pdf.

3.4.2 Universe of Colleges and Universities 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 proposed rule however, 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 proposed rule.

We assume that only the 28 states that adopt 85 percent or more of EPA's rules, plus Iowa and Puerto Rico, will adopt the proposed rule. In these states, there are 173 LQGs and 666 SQGs. The estimated number of colleges and universities projected to be subject to this rule in Table 3 10 is based on this assumption. 3 10 Table 3 10 Number of Colleges and Universities With Laboratories in 30 States and Territories Projected to Adopt the New Laboratory Rule Type of College or University LQG SQG Totals 4 year 164 385 549 2 year 5 144 149 Vocational 4 137 141 Total 173 666 839 Source: 2001 Biennial Reporting System 11Email Re: FW: EPA Laboratory Waste Management rule to Craig Simons of DPRA from Dr. Bruce Backus, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Environmental Health and Safety at Washington University in St. Louis, August 1, 2005. The Agency recognizes that many colleges and universities have different practices regarding the management of generated wastes, however no data are available to assess what practices are most common.

4 1 4.0 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT This chapter presents a description of the methodology used to estimate hazardous waste management costs which are incurred by colleges and universities potentially affected by the proposed rulemaking. The primary focus was on changes in costs incurred as a result of the proposed rule, from the baseline to the proposed regulatory option. In order to estimate impacts, numerous assumptions regarding colleges and universities were required, which are detailed in the following sections. The final section presents results, including baseline, impact and incremental costs as estimated using the methods and assumptions outlined.

4.1 Overview of Colleges and Universities Modeled In order to estimate impacts, model colleges and universities were developed, based on information regarding various factors including number of laboratories, whether the college or university used a central accumulation area ( CAA) for hazardous wastes generated at individual laboratories, and RCRA generator status. An overview of the model colleges and universities used in this analysis is presented in Table 4 1.

4.2 General Model Assumptions The total cost burden estimated for the proposed regulation is estimated using two college and university models, one with a central accumulation area ( CAA) and one without a CAA. As hazardous waste is generated through normal operations within the laboratory, the hazardous waste container is labeled with the constituents in the hazardous waste and placed in an accumulation hood for storage. The hazardous waste is handled in a conservative manner by assuming all generated waste is hazardous. 11 Placing the hazardous waste in the hood with a label naming the constituents is consistent with the current regulations for satellite accumulations areas. Colleges and universities with and without CAAs will accumulate hazardous wastes in the same way in the laboratory setting.

For a college or university with a CAA, an environmental health and safety ( EH& S) staff person is assumed to visit each laboratory on a monthly basis, make necessary hazardous waste determinations, and prepare a full hazardous waste label including the necessary information regarding the contents' HW determination and accumulation date. The label is required prior to the transfer to the on site CAA. The satellite accumulation area is assumed to never exceed the 12The survey respondents reported 70 percent of colleges and universities never require a waste pickup due to exceeding the accumulation limit of 55 gallons because they remove waste frequently.

13 Instruction of students and training of laboratory workers and EH& S staff regarding waste management procedures is typically practiced by the affected colleges and universities ( Backus, B., 2005. Personal communication with Craig Simons DPRA, regarding typical personnel training and instruction). Accordingly, because of these baseline practices, we do not anticipate any incremental costs. Actual HWID requirements are unchanged insofar as the determination will still be required for each wastestream generated. Similarly transportation requirements are assumed to be unchanged from the baseline, whether hazardous waste goes to a CAA and then to disposal, or directly from the laboratory to disposal.

4 2 accumulation limit of 55 gallons12. Hazardous waste accumulated in the CAA is assumed to be stored for the maximum storage time allowed by 40 CFR 262.34 ( 90 or 180 days). The hazardous waste is assumed to be collected and lab packed by contractors directly from the CAA. The hazardous waste is assumed to be incinerated.

For a college or university without a CAA, the laboratory manager 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 based on the facility's generator status ( 90 or 180 days). The hazardous waste is assumed to be incinerated.

The costs for training, performing HW determination, off site transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste are not anticipated to be effected by the proposed rulemaking; therefore, incremental costs are estimated to be zero. 13 Under the more stringent option ( Option A) of the proposed rule, additional costs are the result of the decrease in the allowed accumulation time of waste in the laboratory. This effects the colleges and universities without CAAs. Under the less stringent option ( Option B) of the proposed rule, the costs of notification are removed. In all other cost assumptions, Option A and Option B are the same as the proposed rule.

The proposed rulemaking will allow a laboratory manager to label the generated waste as unwanted material and subsequently make the hazardous waste determination either before the material is removed from the laboratory or within four days of arrival at on site CAA or TSDF. This eliminates the need for EH& S staff to travel to the laboratory on a monthly basis but increases the laboratory manger's labeling responsibilities. 4 3 Table 4 1. Frequency of Colleges, Universities and Vocational Schools by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation Institution System Size LQGs SQGs Totals w/ CAA ( 89%) w/ o CAA ( 11%) w/ CAA ( 68%) w/ o CAA ( 32%)

4 year C/ U Large (> 50 laboratories and > 5 studios) 238 29 132 62 461 Small (<= 50 laboratories and <= 5 studios) 42 5 444 209 700 2 year C/ U Large (> 50 laboratories and > 5 studios) 10 1 52 25 88 Small (<= 50 laboratories and <= 5 studios) 2 0 175 82 259 Vocational Large (> 50 laboratories and > 5 studios) 4 1 46 22 73 Small (<= 50 laboratories and <= 5 studios) 1 0 156 73 230 Totals 297 36 1,005 473 1,811 4 4 Numbers may not add due to independent rounding Source: Estimates derived from percentage based estimates from the National Association of College and University Business Officers, NACUBO 2005 hazardous waste survey, http:// www. nacubo. org/ documents/ business_ topics/ HazardousWasteSurveyResults. pdf.

Notes:

 89% of LQGs and 68% of SQGs have a CAA.

 11% of LQGs and 32% of SQGs DO NOT have a CAA.

 85% of LQGs and 23% of SQGs have > 50 laboratories. Assumed weighted average of 501 laboratories per C/ U for LQGs and 164 laboratories per C/ U for SQGs.

 15% of LQGs and 77% of SQGs have <= 50 laboratories. Assumed weighted average of 22 laboratories per C/ U for LQGs and 20 laboratories per C/ U for SQGs.

 63% of LQGs and 33% of SQGs have > 5 art studios. Assumed weighted average of 26 art studios per C/ U for LQGs and 18 art studios per C/ U for SQGs.

 36% of LQGs and 61% of SQGs have <= 5 art studios. Assumed weighted average of 3 art studios per C/ U for LQGs and 3 art studios per C/ U for SQGs.

 LQG total annual hazardous waste generation:

weighted average = 28 tons 10th Percentile = 1.5 tons 50th Percentile = 25 tons 90th Percentile = 50 tons 36% of LQGs < 12.5 tons. These LQGs must exceed 1,000 kg in at least one month, or generate more than one kg of acute toxic hazardous waste to classify as an LQG given their annual generation rate is similar to a small quantity generator when averaged out over 12 months.

Lower 15% of LQGs = 2.4 tons weighted average Upper 85% of LQGs = 33.2 tons weighted average  SQG total annual hazardous waste generation:

weighted average = 3 tons.

10th Percentile = 0.1 tons 50th Percentile = 1.5 tons 90th Percentile = 7.5 tons 38% of SQGs < 1.2 tons. These SQGs must exceed 100 kg in at least one month to classify as an SQG given their annual generation rate is similar to a conditionally exempt small quantity generator when averaged at over 12 months. 4 5 The proposed rule is intended to encourage colleges and universities to regularly conduct laboratory clean outs of unwanted materials, which will reduce environmental and health risks associated with laboratory operations. One aspect of the proposed rule is that waste generated as a result of eligible clean outs ( 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 may be able to retain/ maintain a lower generator status if the reason the college or university's 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 from a clean out of eligible laboratories). However the Agency does not have data sufficiently detailed to estimate the number of colleges and universities so affected. Therefore, significant assumptions have been made regarding 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 colleges and universities.

The Agency recognizes that some small number of colleges and universities may generate hazardous waste which puts them just over the threshold for a particular generator status, making them an LQG versus a CESQG or SQG. As an example, there may be an SQG which 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 proposed the rule if clean out wastes from eligible clean outs is the reason for a higher reported generator status.

Additionally, colleges and universities that are normally not LQGs except when generating hazardous wastes from laboratory clean out events may benefit by retaining/ maintain a lower generator status because a significant portion of the wastes generated during laboratory cleanouts are believed to be acute hazardous wastes. Because generators of one kilogram of acute hazardous waste/ per month are LQGs, regardless of what other hazardous waste they may generate, elimination of acute hazardous waste generated during eligible clean outs from the determination of generator status may have a substantial impact.

Table 4 2 presents estimates of the potential number of colleges and universities assumed to be able to retain/ maintain a lower 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 estimates may be inflated because of the lack of sufficient data to be able to better refine estimates and the assumptions underlying the estimates. 4 6 Table 4 2. Estimated Number of Colleges and Universities That May Potentially Change RCRA Generator Status Due to the Proposed Laboratory Waste Rule 1/

Generator Status # of Colleges and Universities % LQGs Generating 1,000

2,000 KG/ YR Total Hazardous Waste 2/ % LQGs Generating 2,000 8,000 KG/ YR Total Hazardous Waste 3/ % LQGs Generating > 12 lbs of Acute Hazardous Waste Per Year 4/ Percentage of Colleges and Universities That May Potentially Change Generator Status 5/

% SQGs Generating 100

200 KG/ YR Total Hazardous Waste 2/

LQG 333 8 26 83 30 SQG 1,478 8 NA NA 8 4 7 1/ Generator status is determined on a monthly basis. If a college or university exceeds the volume thresholds of LQGs even on month a year, it must report on the Biennial Report as an LQG. Colleges and universities may be able to retain/ maintain a lower RCRA generator status because wastes generated during eligible laboratory clean outs ( i. e., one clean out per laboratory per 12 months) are excluded from the calculation of total hazardous waste generated. In these limited instances the reduced volume of hazardous waste may allow them to retain/ maintain a lower generator status. This is particularly beneficial to generators that become LQGs due to generation of acutely hazardous wastes during a laboratory clean out since these wastes are more likely to trip the 1 kg/ month threshold limits and cause a generator to increase its status to LQG.

2/ Some colleges and universities are assumed to retain/ maintain a lower generator status by excluding hazardous waste generated during eligible laboratory clean outs, regardless of the type of hazardous waste generated during these clean outs. These colleges and universities would be limited to a small number which currently are only slightly over the maximum monthly volume once or twice a year. For example, assume that an LQG university generates a constant 990 kg of hazardous waste during its operations, but in one month conducts laboratory clean outs which result in an additional 10+ kg of hazardous waste; because of the waste generated during the laboratory clean out, it is becomes an LQG, rather than maintaining its normal status of SQG.

For purposes of this analysis, the number of generators which would benefit from retaining/ maintaining a lower reporting status was approximated by those SQGs generating from 100 to 200 kilograms of total hazardous waste annually, and those LQGs generating 1,000 to 2,000 kilograms of total hazardous waste annually ( including remediation wastes, as well as other hazardous wastes generated as a result of non laboratory operations). The Agency believes that this is likely an overestimation of the number of colleges and universities which may benefit from a lower generator status.

3/ For purposes of this analysis it was assumed that some portion of the college and university 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 cleanouts the 67 percent threshold is used based on professional judgement, since the Agency has no data on the variability of monthly total hazardous waste generation at colleges and universities. It is assumed 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 from a lower generator status because acute hazardous waste generated during qualified laboratory clean outs is not considered in determining generator status. 4 8 4/ 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. 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 judgement. The Agency does not have data on the acute hazardous waste generated from laboratory clean outs.

5/ For LQGs, this is calculated as 8% plus 26% times 83%, resulting in a total of 30% of LQGs which may benefit from maintaining their usual lower generator status.

4.3 Annualization Methodology of Before Tax Compliance Costs Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether a regulation constitutes a " significant regulatory action." One of the criteria for defining a significant regulatory action, as defined under the Executive Order, is if the rule has an annual impact on the economy of $ 100 million or more. To determine whether the proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under this criteria, all costs are annualized on a before tax basis assuming a seven percent real discount rate. The savings attributable to corporate tax deductions or depreciation on capital expenditures for equipment are not considered in calculating before tax costs.

A college or university specific annualized before tax cost analysis was conducted for each college or university affected by the proposed rulemaking. Annual before tax baseline, compliance, and incremental compliance costs were estimated for each college or university. Before tax incremental compliance costs were used because they represent a resource or social cost of the rulemaking, measured before any business expense tax deductions that are available to affected colleges or universities. In reformulating the social costs of compliance, a discount rate ( real rate of return) of seven percent was used, an estimated period of service or life of the product.

The following formula was used to determine the before tax annualized costs:

Annual Before Tax Costs = ( Capital Costs)( CRF n )+ ( Annual O& M Costs)

Where: CRF n = Capital recovery factor ( i. e., the amount of each future annuity payment required to accumulate a given present value) based on a 7 percent real rate of return ( I) and a 10 year borrowing period ( n) as follows:

( 1 + i) n( I) = 0.18555 when n = 7 ( 1 + i)  1 0.29523 when n = 4 0.55310 when n = 2 Costs are inflated from estimated year dollars to 2004 year dollars using the rate of inflation as 14 http:// minneapolisfed. org/ Research/ data/ us/ calc/ hist1913. cfm 15 Applicable only for LQGs who are able to maintain a lower generator status under the rule.

4 9 presented with the consumer price index14.

Costs for contingency planning15, and the notification of intentions to be subject to the proposed rule are one time costs for affected colleges and universities. These costs will be incurred the first year, but not subsequent years. All other costs are estimated as annual expenditures.

4.4 Cost Model Unit Costs Labor Rates Labor rates were determined using the National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, July 2003. Labor fringe benefit and overhead rates are estimated using United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDL: 05 432, March 16, 2005, and OMB Circular No. A 76  Table C, May 29, 2003, respectively. The fringe benefits are estimated as 39 percent of the base labor rate. The overhead rate is estimated as 12 percent of the base and fringe benefit labor rate. The labor rates are based on the hourly pay of a full time annual salary employee. The labor rates are inflated from 2003 dollars to 2004 dollars using a inflation factor of 2.7 percent. The following formula was used to determine the loaded, inflated labor rates:

$ 38.09 ( uninflated base hourly rate Chemistry Teacher) * 1.027 ( inflation) = $ 39.12/ hr ( 2004$) $ 39.12/ hr ( 2004) * 1.39 ( fringe benefits) * 1.12 ( overhead markup) = $ 60.90/ hr ( 2004$)

Table 4 3 presents the loaded and unloaded hourly wages. 16 http:// www. osha. gov/ fso/ osp/ index. html 4 10 Table 4 3. Labor Rates ( 2004$)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor Class Applied Employee Position Labor Rate ($/ hour) Unloaded Labor Rate ($/ hour) Loaded Chemistry Teacher Professor $ 39.12 $ 60.90 Laboratory Manager $ 19.56 $ 30.45 Student Laboratory Worker $ 9.78 $ 15.22 Chemical Engineer EH& S Personnel $ 41.85 $ 65.15 Secretary Clerical $ 15.97 $ 24.86 Management and Administrators, n. e. c. Management $ 38.01 $ 59.17 Drafter Drafting $ 20.48 $ 31.88 Furnace, Kiln, Oven Operators Process Technician $ 15.10 $ 23.50 The laboratory manager and laboratory worker labor rates are based on the chemistry teacher labor rate. A laboratory manager is assumed to be compensated at a rate of half the professor labor rate. A laboratory worker is assumed to be compensated at a rate of half the laboratory manager rate. A laboratory worker is assumed to be a undergraduate or masters student. A laboratory manager is assumed to be a doctorate level student.

Training The proposed rule 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 ( Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming). 16 Employers in these states must provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees have not previously been trained about is introduced into their work area. However it appears that most colleges and universities, including those in non OSHA compliant states, currently provide a variety of training to employees and other personnel ( e. g., students) that utilize hazardous materials in operations. In all circumstances, colleges and universities are assumed to already train their employees to meet their responsibilities and cover OSHA 17 Based on communications with college and university personnel familiar with current practices ( Backus, B., 2005).

18 It is important to note that for any college or university that does not provide training for employees, training cost estimates associated with the proposed laboratory waste rule have been underestimated.

19 Backus, B. 2005. Personal Communication.

4 11 regulations. 17 The existing OSHA training is assumed to meet the training requirements for all options of the proposed rule making. 18 Training costs include sessions for Department of Transportation ( D. O. T.) hazardous waste manifest training, hazardous waste operations, emergency response ( Hazwopper), and hazard communication program ( Hazcom). The estimated number of employees requiring training at the model colleges and universities are presented in Table 4 4.

Instruction is also required for students under the proposed rule. The predominant practice by colleges and universities currently is to provide instruction to students regarding proper laboratory and waste management. 19 The assumption is that this current level of instruction will meet the proposed regulatory requirements.

Table 4 4. Estimated Numbers of Lab Workers Large College or University ( i. e., greater than 50 laboratories) LQG SQG EH& S Staff 22 8 Laboratory Manager 501 164 Laboratory Worker 2505 820 Art Studio Manager 13 9 Small College or University ( i. e., less than 50 laboratories) LQG SQG EH& S Staff 2 2 Laboratory Manager 22 20 Laboratory Worker 110 100 Art Studio Manager 2 2 Source: Estimates derived from percentage based estimates from the National Association of College and University Business Officers, NACUBO 2005 hazardous waste survey, http:// www. nacubo. org/ documents/ business_ topics/ HazardousWasteSurveyResults. pdf. 20 OSHA laboratory standards training costs were considered as an alternative cost estimate. However information obtained was of limited value in estimating training costs, and accordingly costs presented in Table 4 5 were used as a proxy.

4 12 The employee numbers assumes one laboratory manger per chemical lab, five lab workers per chemical lab, and one manager per two art studios; there are no laboratory workers for art studios.

The training course fees were estimated using approximate rates identified using an online review of course providers. The courses are typically priced on a commodity basis and should not vary greatly from market to market. Many large universities have a web based training system for many types of environmental and occupational training courses. In this analysis, the training system utilized is assumed to remain consistent during any rule modifications. The estimated costs per person for each training course is presented in Table 4 5.20 Table 4 5. Training Course Fees Training Course Course Fee 40 Hour OSHA Hazwopper $ 595.00 24 Hour OSHA Hazwopper $ 395.00 8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher $ 125.00 4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher $ 85.00 4 hour Hazcom $ 95.00 2 Hour Hazcom Annual Refresher $ 47.50 Training is assumed to be commensurate with the employees' responsibilities. For example, a laboratory manager that completes shipping manifests is assumed to attend a 24 hour OSHA Hazwopper training course and a 4 hour course on preparing manifests. A laboratory manager or Worker that does not complete manifests will not attend a course on preparing manifests.

An annual record keeping cost of $ 15 is estimated for each college or university to maintain logs of training, for all laboratory workers ( i. e., copies of training sign in sheets).

The initial training costs of a employee is annualized using a capital recovery factor over the estimated period of employment. A laboratory worker is assumed to turnover every two years, a laboratory manager every four years, and EH& S staff every seven years. The estimated annual cost per employee is presented in Table 4 6. 4 13 Table 4 6. Training Costs Employee Type Training Courses Attended Total Cost per Employee EH& S ° 40 Hour OSHA Hazwopper ° 4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher ° 8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher $ 1,586 Laboratory Manager/ Art Studio Manager  Preparing Manifests ° 24 Hour OSHA Hazwopper ° 4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher ° 8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher $ 908 Laboratory Manager/ Art Studio Manager  Not Preparing Manifests ° 24 Hour OSHA Hazwopper ° 8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher $ 701 Laboratory Worker ° 4 hour Hazardous Communications Training ° 2 Hour Hazardous Communication Annual Refresher $ 164 Biennial Reporting Biennial reporting is required by RCRA in 40 CFR part 262.41 for large quantity generators. The proposed rule does not directly effect the requirements for biennial reporting; however, colleges and universities may be able to maintain a lower generator status and avoid the reporting requirements and reduce their annual expenditures, as previously discussed.

The costs for the biennial reporting is estimated using the Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request 976.10 " The 2001 Hazardous Waste Report"  September 19, 2000, revised November 22, 2000 ( ICR 976.10). The ICR presents annual labor burden for reading and preparing the Site Identification Form and 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. The total annual burden for LQGs is estimated as $ 443 ( 2004$). The annual labor burden is summarized in Table 4 7. 4 14 Table 4 7. Biennial Reporting Costs Employee Classification Employee Position Annual Labor Burden ( hrs)

Managerial Management 1.13 Technical EH& S Staff 4.79 Clerical Clerical 0.63 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 judgement. 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 is $ 782, $ 521, and $ 261, respectively, in 2004 dollars.

Contingency Planning The proposed rule does not directly affect contingency planning requirements. However, LQGs who are able to maintain a lower 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 8. Colleges and universities 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 labor rates presented above. The cost includes labor for a drafter, process technician, an engineer, and a manager, for a total expense of $ 1,574 ( 2004$). This cost is incurred once. Costs incurred for updating the contingency plan is included in the General Administrative cost.

Table 4 8. 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 4 15 Laboratory Management Plan A laboratory management plan is assumed to be drafted from an existing chemical hygiene plan. 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 estimate 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. The total cost of initially preparing the laboratory management plan is estimated at $ 3,093 ( 2004$). This cost is incurred once. This cost includes 40 hours of EH& S staff labor and 8 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 annual cost for updates to the laboratory management plan is estimated as $ 261.

Notification A one time cost of notifying the regulating agency regarding the " opt in" decision of the college or university is required to be subject to the proposed regulations. The Agency is not proposing any specific format for these notices, but the notification must include the name and address of the college or university, the EPA ID number( s), the name and phone number of a contact person at the college or university, and the date that the college or university will comply with or withdraw from the alternative regulations. Colleges and universities may provide the information required in a letter or by submitting a completed EPA Form 8700 12 ( or commensurate state forms). The costs for the notification requirement used in this analysis is a letter providing the necessary information. Hourly burden estimates for both the letter notification and notification using EPA Form 8700 12 are presented in Table 4 9. The total cost preparing the notification letter and retaining in the college or university records is estimated at $ 39 ( 2004$). The total cost preparing the EPA Form 8700 12 and retaining in the college or university records is estimated at $ 116.

Table 4 9. Notification Costs Employee Classification Employee Position Letter Notification 1/ EPA Form 8700 12 Notification 2/

Annual Labor Burden ( hrs)

Managerial Management 0.50 0.64 Technical EH& S Staff 0 1.06 Clerical Clerical 0.30 0.14 1/ Source: Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 261.14 " Notification of Regulated Waste Activity"  September 1, 2002. 2/ Source: Estimates derived based on best professional judgement Labeling Currently, labeling of the hazardous waste containers is assumed to be conducted by the EH& S staff at the laboratory on a monthly basis. The container would have been labeled with the 21 Under the proposed regulation, the hazardous waste determination can be completed at the laboratory or CAA. For cost modeling purposes it is assumed to be made at the CAA.

4 16 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 proposed regulations, the laboratory manager will label the containers as " unwanted material" and other information to allow a RCRA trained individual 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. 21 The EH& S staff will re label the containers as hazardous wastes as necessary and all other necessary information.

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 $ 0.064 per label ( Uline model number S 2577). The proposed Subpart K requirement for a label is estimated to cost $ 0.13 per label ( Uline model number S 369) and contains the space 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 820.09 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, November 3, 2004. A label applied in the current regulatory environment is estimated to have a labor burden of 5 minutes per label. The proposed regulation is estimated to add approximately 25 percent 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 ( 0.064 per label or 0.13 per label) + time to fill out label ( 5 or 6 minutes) * Labor rate for EH& S or Laboratory Manager ($ 65.15 or $ 30.45 per hour )

So the current regulation label cost is calculated as: 0.064 per label + 0.0833 hr * $ 30.45 per hour = $ 2.60 per label The following table presents the various alternatives and costs.

Table 4 10. Biennial Reporting Costs Employee Classification Labeling Scenario Cost per Container Labeled ( 2004$)

Current Regulations: LQGs/ SQGs Laboratory Worker At the laboratory in conjunction with a hazardous waste determination $ 2.60 EH& S Staff At the laboratory in conjunction with a hazardous waste determination $ 5.49 Table 4 10. Biennial Reporting Costs 22Email Re: FW: EPA Laboratory Waste Management rule to Craig Simons of DPRA from Dr. Bruce Backus, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Environmental Health and Safety at Washington University in St. Louis, August 1, 2005 4 17 Proposed Regulations: LQGs/ SQGs Laboratory Manager At the lab as " unwanted material" $ 3.30 Laboratory Manager At the lab in conjunction with a hazardous waste determination $ 2.67 EH& S Staff At CAA by EH& S staff in conjunction with a hazardous waste determination $ 5.56 Hazardous Waste Determination Wastes that are generated in a laboratory are assumed to be placed in a hood. The containers are assumed to be labeled with the name of the chemical or chemicals that were used in the generation of the waste, so that a hazardous waste determination can be made.

The costs for the hazardous waste determination is estimated using the Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.09 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, November 3, 2004. The hazardous waste determination is assumed to be completed primarily using process knowledge. Costs for chemical analysis are not estimated as the vast majority of chemical constituents will be known in a laboratory environment. Additionally, the university staff typically is conservative in the determination of hazardous waste and will generally assume a waste is hazardous unless there is rational to make a non hazardous determination22.

On Site Travel The current satellite accumulation area regulations require that the hazardous waste determination and hazardous waste container labeling occur at the point of generation. The laboratory manager or an EH& S staff 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 colleges and universities with a CAA, it is assumed the HW determination and labeling is performed by EH& S staff at the laboratory. For colleges and universities without a CAA, it is assumed the HW determination and labeling is performed by the laboratory manager. To conduct the HW determination at colleges and universities with a CAA, EH& S staff are required to travel to the laboratory. The EH& S staff is assumed to prepare eight labels per trip for a LQG, four for a SQG. This assumption is based on quarterly visits per laboratory for a LQG and annual visits per laboratory for a SQG, a consistent generation rate ( nine pounds per month for LQGs, four pounds per month for SQGs), and each container is approximately one pint in size. A 20 minute trip per laboratory is assumed for a 5 mile trip by vehicle. A per mile cost of $ 0.405 is estimated based on 4 18 the Federal Register published Amendment 2005 01 to the Federal Travel Regulation ( FTR). The total travel cost per label prepared for a LQG is $ 2.97 and for a SQG is $ 5.94.

Under the proposed rule, travel of an EH& S to the laboratory for the HW determination and labeling is not necessary; therefore, the proposed rule costs for travel is zero.

Manifests The proposed rulemaking may affect hazardous waste manifesting costs for colleges and universities with CAAs. Furthermore, if a college or university is able to maintain a status of CESQG ( rather than LQG or SQG) under the rule, that college or university will benefit from lower waste management costs, including manifest costs.

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 801.14 " Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System.", January 31, 2002. Also, costs for making and maintaining copies are included. A manifest is completed by a EH& S staff for colleges and universities with CAAs. For colleges and universities without CAAs, the manifest is completed by a laboratory manager. The labor burden and cost per manifest is presented in Table 4 11.

Table 4 11. Manifest Costs Generation Status Technical Labor Burden Hours per Manifest Clerical Labor Burden Hours per Manifest Total Cost per Manifest ( 2004$) Prepared by EH& S Staff Total Cost per Manifest ( 2004$) Prepared by Lab Manager LQG 0.417 0.2815 $ 33.45 $ 19.70 SQG 0.4065 0.2715 $ 33.23 $ 19.13 For LQG colleges and universities, a pickup of waste is assumed for each laboratory on a quarterly basis under both the current and proposed regulation. For SQGs, transfer of laboratory hazardous wastes occurs annually under the current rule, and semi annually under the proposed rule. Because of the smaller waste volume per laboratory pick up, it is assumed that more laboratories can be visited each day.

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. Table 4 12 presents the number of manifests per quarter and the number of drums in a shipment. 4 19 Table 4 12. Number of Manifest Required Generator Size Number of Laboratory's visited per day for waste collection Number of laboratories at Model College or University Number of Drums per Manifest Number of Collection Days/ Manifest per year LQG w/ o CAA Current regulation 8 501 2 252 Proposed rule 8 501 2 252 LQG with CAA Current regulation N/ A 501 26 4 Proposed rule N/ A 501 26 4 SQG w/ o CAA Current regulation 8 167 1 42 Proposed rule 10 167 1 34 SQG with CAA Current regulation N/ A 167 5.5 2 Proposed rule N/ A 167 5.5 2 Hazardous Waste Off Site Transportation and Disposal The transportation costs are estimated on a per shipment basis using RACER 2003 and inflated to 2004 dollars. A shipment transportation cost is estimated as $ 361.87 ( 2004$). 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. The minimum shipment cost covers transportation costs for distances up to 200 miles. For transportation distances greater than 200 miles, the per shipment cost will decrease. However, the colleges and universities 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 hazardous waste disposal costs include supplying the drum, packing, loading, and incineration. The costs for the drum, loading, and incineration is estimated on a per drum basis using RACER 2003 and inflated to 2004 dollars. The waste chemicals are assumed to be packed 23 Email from John DeLaHunt to Rachel Alford, EPA April 08, 2005 4 20 in a D. O. T. approved drum. The drum is estimated to cost $ 89.76 per drum. The cost to hire contractors to lab pack a drum ranges from $ 300 to $ 600 per drum23. A midpoint of $ 450 per drum is estimated to lab pack a drum. Costs to lab pack a drum was not modified between packing from laboratories and CAAs. The cost for loading a drum on a waste hauler truck is estimated as $ 6.03 per drum ( 2004$). The incineration of a 55 gallon drum is estimated to cost $ 1,922 ( 2004$).

The cost to supply the drum, pack the wastes, load, and incinerate the waste is on a per drum basis. The amount of hazardous waste managed is not estimated to change due to the proposed rulemaking; therefore, the disposal costs of the hazardous wastes is not estimated to be affected by the proposed rulemaking.

The cost for transportation of hazardous wastes are 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; under the proposed rule SQGs are assumed to transfer the waste semi annually. For colleges and universities without a CAA, the wastes are disposed on a quarterly basis for LQGs, and twice a year for SQGs, both pre rule and post rule.

4.5 Summary Tables Presenting Baseline Impact and Incremental Costs Summary tables presenting estimated baseline, impact and incremental costs associated with the proposed rulemaking are presented in Tables 4 13a through 4 15b. These tables show costs associated with the lower bound hazardous waste laboratory generation estimate. 4 21 Table 4 13a. Estimated Baseline College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Large Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs SQGs w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Large Large Large Large Laboratories Training annual 797,352 866,071 262,286 283,514 On site Travel annual 50,554 0 3,894 0 HW Determination annual 554,904 259,341 21,370 9,988 Labeling annual 93,574 44,314 3,604 1,707 Manifest Cost annual 134 4,934 66 784 Drum Transportation Cost annual 1,447 90,649 724 14,837 Drum Disposal Cost annual 68,504 68,504 2,583 2,583 Facility Costs BRS Reporting annual 443 443 0 0 General Administration annual 782 782 521 521 Contingency Planning initial 1,574 1,574 0 0 Lab Management Plan initial 0 0 0 0 Lab Management Plan annual 0 0 0 0 Notification initial 0 0 0 0 Art Studios Training annual 9,127 11,816 6,324 8,185 On site Travel annual 2,624 0 1,816 0 HW Determination annual 28,797 13,459 2,345 1,096 Labeling annual 4,856 2,300 396 187 Table 4 13a. Estimated Baseline College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Large Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs SQGs w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Large Large Large Large 4 22 Manifest Cost annual 0 256 0 86 Drum Transportation Cost annual 0 4,704 0 1,628 Drum Disposal Cost annual 3,555 3,555 284 284 * Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG).

1/ Estimates presented correspond with the lower laboratory hazardous waste quantity estimate presented in Table 3 8. Average annual laboratory hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs are 8.8 tons and 0.32 tons, respectively. The large models represented in this table are assumed to have more than 50 laboratories and five studio laboratories. 4 23 Table 4 13b. Estimated Baseline College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Small Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs SQGs w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Small Small Small Small Laboratories Training annual 36,667 38,045 33,624 34,588 On site Travel annual 2,220 0 475 0 HW Determination annual 24,367 11,388 2,606 1,218 Labeling annual 4,109 1,946 439 208 Manifest Cost annual 134 217 66 808 Drum Transportation Cost annual 1,447 995 724 905 Drum Disposal Cost annual 63,412 63,412 2,493 2,493 Facility Costs BRS Reporting annual 443 443 0 0 General Administration annual 782 782 521 521 Contingency Planning initial 1,574 1,574 0 0 Lab Management Plan initial 0 0 0 0 Lab Management Plan annual 0 0 0 0 Notification initial 0 0 0 0 Art Studios Training annual 1,417 1,830 1,417 1,830 On site Travel annual 303 0 303 0 HW Determination annual 3,323 1,553 391 183 Labeling annual 560 265 66 31 Table 4 13b. Estimated Baseline College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Small Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs SQGs w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Small Small Small Small 4 24 Manifest Cost annual 0 30 0 14 Drum Transportation Cost annual 0 543 0 271 Drum Disposal Cost annual 8,647 8,647 374 374 * Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG).

1/ Estimates presented correspond with the lower laboratory hazardous waste quantity estimate presented in Table 3 8. Average annual laboratory hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs are 8.8 tons and 0.32 tons, respectively. The small models represented in this table are assumed to have less than 50 laboratories and five studio laboratories. 4 25 Table 4 14a. Estimated Proposed Rule College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Large Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Laboratories Training annual 797,352 866,071 797,352 866,071 262,286 283,514 262,286 283,514 On site Travel annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HW Determination annual 554,904 259,341 554,904 259,341 21,370 9,988 21,370 9,988 Labeling annual 150,942 45,438 150,942 45,438 5,813 1,750 3,604 1,707 Manifest Cost annual 134 3,947 66 627 66 627 66 784 Drum Transportation Cost annual 1,447 90,649 724 45,325 724 14,837 362 7,418 Drum Disposal Cost annual 68,504 68,504 68,504 68,504 2,583 2,583 64 64 Facility Costs BRS Reporting annual 443 443 0 0 0 0 0 0 General Administration annual 782 782 521 521 521 521 521 521 Contingency Planning initial 1,574 1,574 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lab Management Plan initial 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 0 0 Table 4 14a. Estimated Proposed Rule College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Large Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large 4 26 Lab Management Plan annual 261 261 261 261 261 261 0 0 Notification initial 39 39 39 39 39 39 0 0 Art Studios Training annual 9,127 11,816 9,127 11,816 6,324 8,185 6,324 8,185 Travel annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HWID annual 28,797 13,459 28,797 13,459 2,345 1,096 2,345 1,096 Labeling annual 7,833 2,358 7,833 2,358 638 192 396 187 Manifest Cost annual 0 205 0 102 0 71 0 34 Drum Transportation Cost annual 0 4,704 0 2,352 0 1,628 0 814 Drum Disposal Cost annual 3,555 3,555 3,555 3,555 284 284 7 7 * Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG).

1/ Estimates presented correspond with the lower laboratory hazardous waste quantity estimate presented in Table 3 8. Average annual laboratory hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs are 8.8 tons and 0.32 tons, respectively. The large models represented in this table are assumed to have more than 50 laboratories and five studio laboratories. 4 27 Table 4 14b. Estimated Proposed Rule College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Small Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Small Small Small Small Small Small Small Small Laboratories Training annual 36,667 38,045 36,667 38,045 33,624 34,588 33,624 34,588 On site Travel annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HW Determination annual 24,367 11,388 24,367 11,388 2,606 1,218 2,606 1,218 Labeling annual 6,628 1,995 6,628 1,995 709 213 709 213 Manifest Cost annual 134 173 67 87 66 79 66 79 Drum Transportation Cost annual 1,447 3,981 724 1,990 724 1,809 724 905 Drum Disposal Cost annual 63,412 63,412 63,412 63,412 2,493 2,493 62 62 Facility Costs BRS Reporting annual 443 443 0 0 0 0 0 0 General Administration annual 782 782 521 521 521 521 521 521 Contingency Planning initial 1,574 1,574 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lab Management Plan initial 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 0 0 Lab Management Plan annual 261 261 261 261 261 261 0 0 Notification initial 39 39 39 39 39 39 0 0 Art Studios Training annual 1,417 1,830 1,417 1,830 1,417 1,830 1,402 1,816 On site Travel annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HW Determination annual 3,323 1,553 3,323 1,553 391 183 391 183 Labeling annual 904 272 904 272 106 32 106 32 Table 4 14b. Estimated Proposed Rule College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Small Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Small Small Small Small Small Small Small Small 4 28 Manifest Cost annual 0 24 0 12 0 11 0 6 Drum Transportation Cost annual 0 543 0 271 0 271 0 136 Drum Disposal Cost annual 8,647 8,647 8,647 8,647 374 374 9 9 * Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG).

1/ Estimates presented correspond with the lower laboratory hazardous waste quantity estimate presented in Table 3 8. Average annual laboratory hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs are 8.8 tons and 0.32 tons, respectively. The small models represented in this table are assumed to have less than 50 laboratories and five studio laboratories. 4 29 Table 4 15a. Estimated Incremental College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Large Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Laboratories Training annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On site Travel annual ( 50,554) 0 ( 50,554) 0 ( 3,894) 0 ( 3,894) 0 HW Determination annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Labeling annual 57,368 1,124 57,368 1,124 2,209 43 0 0 Manifest Cost annual 0 ( 987) ( 67) ( 4,306) 0 ( 157) 0 0 Drum Transportation Cost annual 0 0 ( 724) ( 45,325) 0 0 ( 362) ( 7,418)

Drum Disposal Cost annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 2,520) ( 2,520)

Facility Costs BRS Reporting annual 0 0 ( 443) ( 443) 0 0 0 0 General Administration annual 0 0 ( 261) ( 261) 0 0 0 0 Contingency Planning initial 0 0 ( 1,574) ( 1,574) 0 0 0 0 Lab Management Plan initial 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 0 0 Lab Management Plan annual 261 261 261 261 261 261 0 0 Notification initial 39 39 39 39 39 39 0 0 Art Studios Training annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On site Travel annual ( 2,624) 0 ( 2,624) 0 ( 1,816) 0 ( 1,816) 0 Table 4 15a. Estimated Incremental College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Large Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Large Large Large Large Large Large Large Large 4 30 HW Determination annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Labeling annual 2,977 58 2,977 58 242 5 0 0 Manifest Cost annual 0 ( 51) 0 ( 154) 0 ( 15) 0 ( 52)

Drum Transportation Cost annual 0 0 0 ( 2,352) 0 0 0 ( 814)

Drum Disposal Cost annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 277) ( 277)

* Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG).

1/ Estimates presented correspond with the lower laboratory hazardous waste quantity estimate presented in Table 3 8. Average annual laboratory hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs are 8.8 tons and 0.32 tons, respectively. The large models represented in this table are assumed to have more than 50 laboratories and five studio laboratories. 4 31 Table 4 15b. Estimated Incremental College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Small Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Small Small Small Small Small Small Small Small Laboratories Training annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On site Travel annual ( 2,220) 0 ( 2,220) 0 ( 475) 0 ( 475) 0 HW Determination annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Labeling annual 2,519 49 2,519 49 269 5 269 5 Manifest Cost annual 0 ( 43) ( 67) ( 130) 0 ( 729) 0 ( 729)

Drum Transportation Cost annual 0 2,985 ( 724) 995 0 905 0 0 Drum Disposal Cost annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 2,431) ( 2,431)

Facility Costs BRS Reporting annual 0 0 ( 443) ( 443) 0 0 0 0 General Administration annual 0 0 ( 261) ( 261) 0 0 0 0 Contingency Planning initial 0 0 ( 1,574) ( 1,574) 0 0 0 0 Lab Management Plan initial 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 3,093 0 0 Lab Management Plan annual 261 261 261 261 261 261 0 0 Notification initial 39 39 39 39 39 39 0 0 Art Studios Training annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 15) ( 15)

On site Travel annual ( 303) 0 ( 303) 0 ( 303) 0 ( 303) 0 HW Determination annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4 15b. Estimated Incremental College and University Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model ( Small Models/ Low Laboratory Hazardous Waste Volumes) 1/

Cost Item Frequency LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA Small Small Small Small Small Small Small Small 4 32 Labeling annual 344 7 344 7 40 1 40 1 Manifest Cost annual 0 ( 6) 0 ( 18) 0 ( 3) 0 ( 9)

Drum Transportation Cost annual 0 0 0 ( 271) 0 0 0 ( 136)

Drum Disposal Cost annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 365) ( 365)

* Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG).

1/ Estimates presented correspond with the lower laboratory hazardous waste quantity estimate presented in Table 3 8. Average annual laboratory hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs are 8.8 tons and 0.32 tons, respectively. The small models represented in this table are assumed to have less than 50 laboratories and five studio laboratories. 5 1 5.0 COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS In this chapter cost impacts for the proposed rule are presented. In Section 5.1, aggregate cost impacts associated with the proposed rule are presented, based on the model colleges and universities, methodology and assumptions presented in Chapter 4. In Section 5.2, average cost impacts are estimated, expressed as total annualized costs as a percentage of average revenue. Section 5.3 presents aggregate impacts for colleges and universities expected to adopt the proposed rule. Section 5.4 briefly summarizes the cost impacts expected under alternative regulatory Options A and B. The final section contains estimates of the impacts on state governments, as required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

It is important to note that the impact estimates presented in this chapter are presented as annualized costs. Initial and capital investment costs were annualized using a real discount rate of seven ( 7) percent. As requested by the Office of Management and Budget, an alternative assessment using a three ( 3) percent discount rate was completed and is briefly discussed in this chapter. Cost impact tables corresponding with the three percent discount rate are presented in Appendix B. While the estimated annualized cost savings are higher using the three percent discount rate, the number of facilities expected to choose to be regulated under the proposed rule does not change significantly.

5.1 Aggregate Cost Impacts As discussed in Chapter 3, reliable estimates of hazardous waste quantities generated by college and university laboratories are not available through the biennial reporting system or other sources. Consequently the Agency has estimated a range of waste quantities, believed to be generated by college and university laboratories. As presented in Table 3 8, the estimated annual quantity hazardous waste generated at college and university laboratories ranges from approximately 3,400 to 6,000 tons. For purposes of presentation, impact estimates presented in the tables in this chapter correspond with the lower ( 3,400 tons per year) estimate. Corresponding impacts for the higher hazardous waste volume are presented in Appendix A. However the summary discussion presented in this chapter addresses the range of hazardous waste quantity estimates.

In this section aggregate cost impacts are presented as if the rulemaking was mandatory for all targeted colleges and universities. While the Agency is intending to promulgate the rule as an optional rule, examining aggregate impacts assuming 100 percent opt in rates provides background and understanding for estimates presented in subsequent sections.

Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the hazardous waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per 12 months in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generators ( LQGs) to small quantity generators ( SQGs) and SQGs to conditionally exempt small quantity generators ( CESQGs). Based on the review of the generation of hazardous waste by colleges and universities, 30 percent of LQGs and eight percent of the SQGs are assumed to be able to reduce their generation status one level ( e. g., from LQG to SQG), as discussed previously in Chapter 4. Table 5 1 shows the number of 5 2 colleges and universities by institution type and laboratory system size, including those colleges and universities estimated to retain a lower RCRA generator status ( from Table 4 2).

Table 5 2 presents average cost impacts for each model college or university. As indicated, LQGs without central accumulation areas ( CAAs) are the least likely to benefit from the proposed rule, with annualized impacts estimated to range from approximately $ 3,000 to over $ 6,000 per year, due primarily to labeling requirements. Cost estimates for LQGs without CAAs using a three percent discount rate range from approximately $ 2,000 to just over $ 5,000 ( Appendix B, Table B 1). LQGs with CAAs and less than 50 laboratories are also estimated to incur increased costs under the proposed rule. The only LQGs projected to incur a cost savings are those which benefit from the laboratory clean out incentives, enabling them to reduce their generator status to SQG and large LQGs with CAAs.

Small quantity generators, like LQGs, are more likely to benefit from the proposed rulemaking if they have CAAs. These SQGs experience substantially greater reductions in on site travel costs than the increases associated with labeling requirements.

It is important to note that the cost modeling assumptions, and the results presented in this chapter, are somewhat restrictive in that they do not address the large variation in hazardous waste generation and management practices of individual colleges and universities. Individual colleges and universities may experience cost impact which vary substantially from the estimates presented, depending especially on their baseline hazardous waste identification practices as well as variations in annual quantities of waste.

Table 5 3 presents aggregate cost impacts for all colleges and universities assuming a 100 percent opt in, which is not expected given that the rule is optional for post secondary institutions. Aggregate cost impacts are estimated to be a net savings of approximately $ 2.0 million, annualized ( 2004 dollar basis, using a 7 percent real discount rate), given the lower laboratory hazardous waste generation estimate of 8.8 tons for LQGs and 0.32 tons for SQGs. Corresponding aggregate annualized cost impacts using a 3 percent discount rate are estimated to be a net savings of approximately $ 3.5 million. 5 3 Table 5 1. Number of Model Colleges and Universities in Each Impact Category by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation Institution System Size LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs* Totals w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA 4 year C/ U Number of Colleges and Universities (> 50 labs, > 5 studios) Large 167 20 71 9 121 57 11 5 461 (<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios) Small 29 4 13 1 408 192 36 17 700 2 year C/ U (> 50 labs, > 5 studios) Large 7 1 3 0 48 23 4 2 88 (<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios) Small 1 0 1 0 161 75 14 7 259 Vocational (> 50 labs, > 5 studios) Large 3 1 1 0 42 20 4 2 73 (<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios) Small 1 0 0 0 144 67 12 6 230 Totals 208 26 89 10 924 434 81 39 1811 Numbers may not add due to independent rounding * Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG). As discussed in Chapter 4, a total of 30 percent of LQGs and 8 percent of SQGs are assumed to maintain a lower generator status under the proposed rule. 5 4 Table 5 2. Estimated Average Impact Per College or University by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation1 System Size LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

Institution w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA 4 year C/ U $/ year (> 50 labs, > 5 studios) Large ($ 16,906) $ 2,876 ($ 19,975) ($ 50,501) ($ 878) $ 3,245 ($ 8,276) ($ 10,702)

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios) Small $ 2,430 $ 6,354 ($ 639) $ 1,715 $ 2,806 $ 3,569 ($ 3,020) ($ 3,303)

2 year C/ U (> 50 labs, > 5 studios) Large ($ 16,906) $ 2,876 ($ 19,975) $ 0 ($ 878) $ 3,245 ($ 8,276) ($ 10,702)

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios) Small $ 2,430 $ 0 ($ 639) $ 0 $ 2,806 $ 3,569 ($ 3,020) ($ 3,303)

Vocational (> 50 labs, > 5 studios) Large ($ 16,906) $ 2,876 ($ 19,975) $ 0 ($ 878) $ 3,245 ($ 8,276) ($ 10,702)

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios) Small $ 2,430 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,806 $ 3,569 ($ 3,020) ($ 3,303)

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

* Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG). As discussed in Chapter 4, a total of 30 percent of LQGs and eight percent of SQGs are assumed to maintain a lower generator status under the proposed rule. 5 5 Table 5 3. Aggregate Costs of Rulemaking by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation Assuming 100 Percent Adoption1 System Size LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs* Totals Institution w/ CAA w/ oCAA w/ CAA w/ oCAA w/ CAA w/ oCAA w/ CAA w/ oCAA 4 year C/ U $/ year (> 50labs,

> 5studios Large ( 2,823,222) 57,529 ( 1,418,212) ( 454,507) ( 106,213) 184,948 ( 91,041) ( 53,512) ( 4,704,231)

(<= 50labs,

<= 5studios) Small 70,464 25,415 ( 8,308) 1,715 1,144,711 685,208 ( 108,726) ( 56,154) 1,754,325 2 year C/ U (> 50labs,

> 5studios) Large ( 118,339) 2,876 ( 59,924)  ( 42,134) 74,628 ( 33,106) ( 21,405) ( 197,403)

(<= 50labs,

<= 5studios) Small 2,430  ( 639)  451,712 267,659 ( 42,282) ( 23,122) 655,757 Vocational (> 50labs,

> 5studios) Large ( 50,717) 2,876 ( 19,975)  ( 36,867) 64,894 ( 33,106) ( 21,405) ( 94,299)

(<= 50labs,

<= 5studios) Small 2,430    404,016 239,109 ( 36,242) ( 19,819) 589,493 Totals ( 2,916,954) 88,696 ( 1,507,059) ( 452,792) 1,815,225 1,516,446 ( 344,504) ( 195,418) ( 1,996,358)

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

Numbers may not add due to independent rounding * Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG). As discussed in Table 5 3. Aggregate Costs of Rulemaking by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation Assuming 100 Percent Adoption1 System Size LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs* Totals Institution w/ CAA w/ oCAA w/ CAA w/ oCAA w/ CAA w/ oCAA w/ CAA w/ oCAA 5 6 Chapter 4, a total of 30 percent of LQGs and 8 percent of SQGs are assumed to maintain a lower generator status under the proposed rule. 24 Based on state rule adoption data from the StATS data system on March 31, 2005.

25 Using a three percent real discount rate, the same 296 colleges and universities are expected to adopt the proposed rule, given low hazardous waste generation estimate ( Appendix B, Table B 3). Given the higher hazardous waste generation estimate 203 colleges and universities are expected to adopt the proposed rule ( Appendix B, Table B 9).

5 7 5.2 Average College and University Cost Impacts As a Percent of Revenue Average college and university costs as a percentage of total revenue are presented in Table 5 4. Overall impacts, under 100 percent adoption range from a cost savings of 3.3 percent to an increased cost of nearly 0.6 percent. Using a three percent real discount rate, overall impacts range from a cost savings of 3.0 percent to an increased cost of nearly 0.5 percent ( Appendix B, Table B 2). Vocational schools account for the most extreme impacts given that they have only modest annual revenues of $ 0.6 million.

5.3 Expected Adoption Rates and Impacts As previously noted, the proposed rule is optional, leaving states with jurisdiction over their RCRA program the option to codify the rule within their own programs. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that states which have historically adopted at least 85 percent of RCRA rule changes, will actually codify the proposed laboratory waste rule; in effect this eliminates a total of 21 states. 24 As a result of this assumption, only 173 LQGs and 666 SQGs are estimated to have the opportunity to adopt the rule.

Further limiting the impacts of the rule is the fact that individual institutions will have the opportunity to adopt the rule, or continue operating under the existing rules. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that only those colleges and universities which experience a decrease in cost will actually adopt the rule.

Table 5 5 shows the number of colleges and universities expected to have the opportunity to adopt the proposed rule and by model category. In total there are 296 colleges and universities expected to adopt the proposed rule, given low hazardous waste generation estimate of 8.8 tons per year for LQGs and 0.32 tons per year for SQGs shown in Table 5 5. Given the higher hazardous waste generation estimate of 15.3 and 0.62 tons per year for LQGs and SQGs, respectively ( see Appendix A, Table A5 5), only 195 colleges and universities are estimated to be subject to the proposed rule. 25 Aggregate impacts from the adoption of the proposed rule are presented in Table 5 6. Aggregate cost savings are estimated to be $ 2.9 million per year on an annualized basis. Given the higher hazardous waste generation estimate of 15.3 and 0.62 tons per year for LQGs and SQGs, respectively, cost savings are estimated to be $ 0.6 million per year ( see Appendix A, Table A5 26 Using a three percent real discount rate, aggregate cost savings are estimated to range from $ 3.1 to only $ 0.7 million per year, given the low and high hazardous waste generation rates ( Appendix B, Tables B 4 and B 10).

5 8 6). 26 5 9 Table 5 4. Estimated Average Impact Per College and University by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation As a Percentage of Annual Revenue1 Annual Revenue LQGs LQGs to SQGs* SQGs SQGs to CESQGs*

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

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

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

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

Vocational (> 50 labs, > 5 studios) 0.6  2.82% 0.48%  3.33% 0.00%  0.15% 0.54%  1.38%  1.78%

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios) 0.6 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.47% 0.59%  0.50%  0.55%

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

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

Numbers may not add due to independent rounding * Under the proposed rule, a college or university is allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean out per laboratory per year in determining the college or university's generation status. This may allow some colleges and universities to reduce their reported generator status from large quantity generator ( LQG) to small quantity generator ( SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG). As discussed in Chapter 4, a total of 30 percent of LQGs and 8 percent of SQGs are assumed to maintain a lower generator status under the proposed rule. 5 11 Table 5 6. Aggregate Expected Cost of Proposed Rulemaking by Institution Type, Laboratory System Size, Generator Status, and CAA Operation1 System Size LQGs LQGs to SQGs** SQGs SQGs to CESQGs** Totals Institution w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA w/ CAA w/ o CAA 4 year C/ U $/ year (> 50 labs, > 5 studios) Large ( 1,466,664 ) 0 ( 736,761) ( 236,116) ( 47,859) 0 ( 41,023) ( 24,113) ( 2,552,537 )

(<= 50 labs, <= 5 studios) Small 0 0 ( 4,316) 0 0 0 ( 48,992) ( 25,303) ( 78,611)