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

Final Rule

Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division

Office of Solid Waste

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

June 30, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1

1.1  Introduction	1

1.2  Methodology	2

1.3  Results	3

1.4  Other Regulatory Issues	4

2.0  BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS	6

2.1  Background and Need For Regulation	6

2.2  Summary of the Final Rule	8

2.3  Alternative Options Analyzed	15

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

2.5  Report Organization	19

3.0  ELIGIBLE ACADEMIC ENTITIES	20

3.1  Industry Classification of Eligible Academic Entities	20

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

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

       The Regulation	23

3.4  Average Revenues of Eligible Academic Entities	26

3.5  Limitations	26

4.0  MODEL FACILITY ASSUMPTIONS AND UNIT COST ESTIMATES	28

4.1  Model Facility Categorization	28

4.2  Laboratory Hazardous Waste Operations	35

4.3  Containers Generated Per Laboratory	41

4.4  Unit Cost Estimates	42

4.5  Limitations	57

5.0  COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS	59

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

5.2  Aggregate Impacts	63

5.3  Eligible Academic Entity Average Cost Impacts as a Percent of 

       Average Revenue	66

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

       Academic Entities	66

5.5  Sensitivity Analysis:  Aggregate Cost Impacts Under Alternative 

       Options A and B	69

5.6  Impacts on State Governments	74

6.0  QUALITATIVE BENEFITS	76

7.0  OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS	77

7.1  Executive Order 12866 – Regulatory Planning and Review	 78

7.2  Regulatory Flexibility Act	78

7.3   Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice	79

7.4  Executive Order 13045 – Protection of Children from Environmental


       Health Risks and Safety Risks	79

7.5  Executive Order 12630 – Regulatory Takings	80

7.6  Joint Impacts of Rules	80

7.7  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act	80

7.8  Executive Order 13132 – Federalism	81

7.9  Executive Order 13175 – Tribalism	82

7.10  Executive Order 13211 – Energy Effects	82

7.11  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act	83

REFERENCES	84

Appendix A:  Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis	A-1

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

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

                      Compliance Costs	C-1

Appendix D:  Training Cost Estimates	D-1

Appendix E:  Detailed Model Facility Cost Estimates	E-1

Appendix F:  Definitions	F-1

List of Acronyms



BMPs	Best Management Practices

BR	Biennial Report

CAA 	Central Accumulation Area

CESQG  	Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

CFR	Code of Federal Regulations

CRF  	Capital recovery factor

CSHEMA	Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association

CUs  	Colleges and Universities

EA  	Economic Assessment

EH&S 	Environmental Health and Safety

FR  	Federal Register

GDP  	Gross Domestic Product

HSWA 	Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

HW  	Hazardous Waste

HWID  	Hazardous Waste Identification

ICR	Information Collection Request

LDR	Land Disposal Restrictions

LMP	Laboratory Management Plan

LQG	Large Quantity Generator

NA  	Not Applicable

NACUBO  	National Association of College and University Business
Officers

NAICS	North American Industry Classification System

OMB	Office of Management and Budget

OSHA	Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PRA	Paperwork Reduction Act

Project XL	eXcellence and Leadership

R&D	Research and Development

RACER  	Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements System

RCRA 	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFA  	Regulatory Flexibility Act

SAA  	Satellite Accumulation Area

SQG  	Small Quantity Generator

SWDA 	Solid Waste Disposal Act

TSDF 	Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility



UMRA	

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

USDC	United States Department of Commerce

USDL  	United States Department of Labor

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

Results

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

Table 1-1. Estimated Impacts of Final Rule

Item	LQGs	SQGs	CESQGs	All Facilities

Universe of Eligible Academic Entities	397	759	424	1,580

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

Academic Entities Projected to Adopt Subpart K	25	87	0	112

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

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

1.  Monetary values presented to three significant digits.



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

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

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

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

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

Other Regulatory Issues

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA);

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 13132, Federalism;

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

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

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

2.0	BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS

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

2.1	Background and Need for Regulation

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

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

	

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

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

 

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

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

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

2.2	Summary of the Final Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject	Satellite Regulations1	Proposed Rule	Final Rule

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

Art studios are labs

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

Art studios are labs

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

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

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

Scope/Applicability of Proposal

Type of Facility	N/A	Eligible to Opt in:

Colleges & Universities only

Hospitals not eligible – 

requested comment only	Eligible to Opt in:

Colleges & Universities

Teaching hospitals with formal college or university affiliation

Non-profit Research Institutes with formal written affiliation with CU

Generator status	N/A	LQGs & SQGs only eligible

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

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

Making the HW determination

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

in the SAA

when the HW is generated	HW determination must be made:

Before removed from the lab, or

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

	HW determination must be made:

Before removed from the lab, or

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

                        HW determination

                            for P-list/acutes

               (& episodic generation)

	124 acute HW

LQG status if >1 qt/mo	124 acute HW

LQG status if >1 qt/mo	124 acute HW

LQG status if >1 qt/mo

Container Labeling in Lab

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

“another equally effective term” that is consistently used

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

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

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

Container Labeling after HW Determination 

                  Hazardous waste code

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

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

Container Management in Lab	Containers must be in good condition

Containers must be compatible with contents 

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

Containers must be in good condition

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

Containers must be in good condition

Containers must be compatible with contents



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

When adding, removing or consolidating unwanted material

When container is a working container

When venting is necessary 

For the operation of lab equipment, or

To prevent a dangerous situation

On-site Consolidation Area or

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

Training & Instruction

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

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

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

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



                         Training Records	None required for those
working exclusively in SAAs

For LQGs only: training records required for:

on-site transporters

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

laboratory workers

on-site transporters

those making HW determination 

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

laboratory workers

on-site transporters

those making HW determination

no training records for students

Removing containers from lab

      Maximum accumulation time

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

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

all containers must be removed every 6 months at maximum, 

no container can be in lab longer than six months

 Maximum accumulation volume

                                            in lab	55 gallons of HW

1 qt of 124 acute HW	55 gallons of unwanted material

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

1 qt of  6 reactive acutely unwanted material

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

Laboratory Cleanouts	Regulations act as disincentive:

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

30 days allowed for clean-out

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

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

30 days allowed for clean-out

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

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

Records required for lab clean-out

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

                     LMP Enforceability	N/A	2 options co-proposed:

1.  LMP contents are not enforceable

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

Part I – LMP contents are enforceable

Part II – LMP contents are not enforceable

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

2.3			Alternative Options Analyzed

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

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

Management Item	Final Rule	Option A

(more stringent)	Option B

(less stringent)

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

All containers must be removed every  6 months at maximum, 

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

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

Labeling	Container in lab:

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

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

Date unwanted material first begins accumulating

After hazardous waste determination (if hazardous):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Training described in LMP	Same as final rule

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

Containers must be in good condition

Containers must be compatible with contents	Prescriptive requirements in
the rule: i.e. container must be closed, in good condition, compatible
with waste, wastes must not be stored near incompatible wastes	Same as
final rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.5	Report Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 		ELIGIBLE ACADEMIC ENTITIES

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

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

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

3.2	Universe of Eligible Academic Entities and their Laboratory
Hazardous Waste

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



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

NAICS Codes	Description of NAICS Code

Colleges & Universities

6112, 61121, 611210	Junior Colleges

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

6115, 61151	Technical and Trade Schools 

611519	Other Technical and Trade Schools 

61161, 611610	Fine Arts Schools

Teaching Hospitals

54194, 541940	Veterinary Services (Animal Hospitals)

622	Hospitals

6221, 62211, 622110	General Medical and Surgical Hospitals

6222, 62221, 622210	Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals

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

Non-Profit Research Institutes

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

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



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

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



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

Type of Eligible Academic Entity	LQG	SQG	CESQG	

Total Number of Eligible Academic Entities



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



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



Vocational1	0	25	37	62

Teaching Hospital	103	120	40	263

Non-Profit Research Institutes	8	24	29	61

Total	397	759	424	1,580

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

CU LQGs	286	6,530.1	8,717.7	22.83	30.48







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

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

Total CU SQGs	615	487.1	5,302.7	0.79	8.62







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

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

Total CU CESQGs	355	92.8	197.0	0.26	0.55







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







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

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

Total Teaching Hospital SQGs	120	116.1	398.1	0.97	3.32







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

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

Total Teaching Hospital CESQGs	40	9.1	22.2	0.23	0.55







	Non-Profit Research Institutes LQGs	8	119.5	130.3	14.93	16.29







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

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

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Type of Eligible Academic Entity	LQG	SQG	CESQG	

Total Number of Eligible Academic Entities



4-year CUs	119	194	100	413



2-year CUs	3	57	36	96



Vocational1	0	11	16	27

Teaching Hospital	44	51	17	112

Non-Profit Research Institutes	3	10	12	25

Total	169	323	181	673

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

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



3.4	Average Revenues of Eligible Academic Entities

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

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

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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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



3.5	Limitations

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

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

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

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

4.0	MODEL FACILITY ASSUMPTIONS AND UNIT COST ESTIMATES

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

4.1		Model Facility Categorization

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

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

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

Categorization by Institution Type

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

Categorization by Laboratory System Size

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

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

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

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

Categorization by Generator Status

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

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

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

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

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

Categorization by CAA Operation

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

Results of Categorization 

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

Estimation of Number of Labs by Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	LQGs	SQGs	CESQGs	Totals

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

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

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

2-year CU

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

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

Vocational

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

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

Teaching Hospital

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

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

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

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

Totals	352	45	516	243	195	229	1,580

	397	754	424	1,580



General Table Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

 and Laboratory System Size

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



LQG	SQG	CESQG

4-year CU

and

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



> 5 studios	24	17



Small 	<= 50 labs	22	19	11



<= 5 studios	3	3	2

2-year CU	Large 	>50 labs	501	164	NA



> 5 studios	24	17



Small 	<= 50 labs	22	19	11



<= 5 studios	3	3	2

Vocational	Large 	>50 labs	501

	164

	NA



> 5 studios	24	17



Small	<= 50 labs	22	19	11



<= 5 studios	3	3	2

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

	Large (15 labs)	15	NA	NA

	Small (6 labs)	NA	6	NA

	Very Small (2 labs)	NA	NA	2



4.2 	 Laboratory Hazardous Waste Operations

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

Operations under Baseline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operations under Final Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operations under Alternative Options

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



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



Generator Status	

# of Colleges and Universities	

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

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

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

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





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



	

LQG	

286	

5	

27	

83	

27



SQG	

615	

9	

NA	

NA	

9



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

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

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



Containers Generated Per Laboratory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Type of Eligible Academic Entity	LQG	SQG	CESQG	

Total Number of Annual Containers

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

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

Vocational	0	7,520	10,101	17,621

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

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



4.4	Unit Cost Estimates

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

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

Labeling containers as “unwanted materials”;

Recordkeeping requirements for lab cleanouts;

Lab management plan preparation and maintenance; and

Notification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Cost Category	Baseline Unit Cost	Final Rule Unit Cost

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

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

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

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

$98/year for update**

Reading the Rule	N/A	$9/year*

Notification	N/A	$17/year*

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

$0.25/container for LQGs

$0.55/container for SQGs

$0.13/container for CESQGs

Teaching hospitals:

$0.25/container for  very large

$0.05/container for large

$0.39/container for small

$0.55/container for very small	N/A

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

Manifests	$35.01/manifest for LQGs

$34.43/manifest for SQGs

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

$34.43/manifest for SQGs

$34.43/manifest for CESQGs

Biennial Reporting	$333/LQG

$0/SQG

$0/CESQG	$333/LQG

$0/SQG

$0/CESQG

General Administration	$772/LQG

$515/SQG

$257/CESQG	$772/LQG

$515/SQG

$257/CESQG

Contingency Planning	$228/LQG*

$0/SQG

$0/CESQG	$228/LQG*

$0/SQG

$0/CESQG

Training	$1,602/EH&S staff

$714/lab manager

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

$714/lab manager

$163/lab worker

Hazardous Waste Disposal	$102.34/drum for purchase

$483.10/drum for lab packing

$6.69/drum for loading

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

$483.10/drum for lab packing

$6.69/drum for loading

$2,192 for incineration

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

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





Components of Final Rule Increasing Costs

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

Labeling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final rule labeling cost is calculated as the following:

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

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

Table 4-6 presents the labeling alternatives and costs.

Table 4-6.  Labeling Costs



Employee Classification	

Labeling Scenario	Cost per Container Labeled (2008$)



Current (Baseline) Regulations



Laboratory Worker	

At the laboratory as hazardous material	

$1.49



EH&S Staff		

At the laboratory in conjunction with a hazardous waste determination	

$5.49



Final Rule



Laboratory Worker	

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

$1.76



EH&S Staff		

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


$5.49



Recordkeeping for Laboratory Clean Outs

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

Laboratory Management Plan

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

 

Reading the Rule and Notification

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



Table 4-7.  Notification Costs



Employee Classification	

Employee Position	Letter Notification 1/

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

(final rule)



Annual Labor Burden (hrs)



Managerial	

Management		

0.50	

0.64



Technical			

EH&S Staff	

0	

1.06



Clerical			

Clerical	

0.25	

0.14

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

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



Components of Final Rule Decreasing Costs

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

Off-Site Transportation

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

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

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

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

Manifests

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

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



Table 4-8.  Manifest Costs



Generation Status	

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

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



	LQG	

0.4196	

0.3020	

$35.01



	SQG/CESQG	

0.4191	

0.2815	

$34.43

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

LQG w/o CAA

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

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

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

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

LQG with CAA

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

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

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

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

SQG w/o CAA

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

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

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

SQG with CAA

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

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

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

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

CESQG w/o CAA

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

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

CESQG with CAA

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

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

* Parenthetical numbers represent negative values.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biennial Reporting

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

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

Table 4-10.   Biennial Reporting Costs

Employee Classification	Employee Position	Annual Labor Burden (hrs)



Managerial	

Management			

1.37



Technical			

EH&S Staff	

3.57



Clerical			

Clerical	

0.61



General Administration

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

Contingency Planning

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

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

Table 4-11.   Contingency Planning Costs

Employee Classification	Employee Position	One Time Labor Burden (hrs)



Managerial	

Management			

3



Technical			

EH&S Staff	

16



Drafter	

Drafter	

3



Process Technician		

Furnace, Kiln, Oven Operators	

11



Components of Final Rule with No Net Costs

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

Training

Subpart K requires training commensurate with the responsibilities of
the laboratory worker.  Under current OSHA regulation 1910.1450,
training for laboratory employees that manage or handle hazardous
materials is required.  Currently there are 26 states and territories
with OSHA-compliant job safety and health programs.  All employers in
these states must provide employees with effective information and
training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their
initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the
employees have not previously been trained about is introduced into
their work area.  State, county and city employers are not subject to
Federal OSHA requirements, and OSHA requirements would only apply to
these employers in states with state-run OSHA programs.  However, it
appears that most colleges, universities, and hospitals, including state
or local facilities in those states without approved state OSHA
programs, currently provide a variety of training to employees and other
personnel (e.g., students) that utilize hazardous materials in
operations.  In all circumstances, facilities are assumed to already
train their employees to meet their responsibilities under OSHA
regulations.  The existing OSHA training is assumed to meet the training
requirements for the final rule.      

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

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

Hazardous Waste Determination

Wastes that are generated in a laboratory are assumed to be placed in a
hood.  The containers are assumed to be labeled with the name of the
chemical or chemicals that were used in the generation of the waste, or
labeled as hazardous waste.  The hazardous waste code will be added once
the hazardous waste determination is made.    

The costs for the hazardous waste determination are estimated using the
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.10
Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, January 2008.  The hazardous waste
determination is assumed to be completed primarily using process
knowledge.  Costs for chemical analysis are not estimated as the vast
majority of chemical constituents will be known in a laboratory
environment.  Additionally, the university staff is typically
conservative in the determination of hazardous waste and will generally
assume a waste is hazardous unless it is rational to make a
non-hazardous determination.  

Hazardous Waste Disposal

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

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

4.5	Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

 (Very Large and Large Models, 2008 $)1

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

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

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

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







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

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

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

Art Studios (excluding facility-wide administrative costs)3









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

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

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

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







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

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

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

Hospitals (including facility-wide administrative costs)5











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

 (Small Models, 2008 $)1

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

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

	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small

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





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

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

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

Art Studios (excluding facility-wide administrative costs)3







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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2	 Aggregate Impacts

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

2-year C/U3

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

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

Vocational3

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

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

Teaching Hospital3

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

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

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

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

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

1.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the HW that is unused commercial chemical product
generated from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in
determining the entity’s generation status.  This may allow some
eligible academic entities to reduce their reported generator status to
their typical generator status going from large quantity generator (LQG)
to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt small
quantity generator (CESQG).  As discussed in Chapter 4, a total of 27
percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are assumed to maintain their
typical generator status under the rule.

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

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





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

Institution	System Size

	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs



	w/ CAA	w/o 

CAA	w/ CAA	w/o 

CAA	w/ 

CAA	w/o CAA	w/ 

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

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

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

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

2-year C/U4

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

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

Vocational4

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

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

Teaching Hospitals4

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status. 
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going from large
quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).  As discussed in
Chapter 4, a total of 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to attain their typical generator status under the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institution	Annual Revenue1

($ million)	Impacts as a Percent of Annual Revenue



LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs



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

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

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

Vocational

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

Teaching Hospitals4

Very Large (>50 labs)

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

Large (15 labs)

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

Small (6 labs)

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

Very Small (2 labs)

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

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status. 
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going from large
quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).  As discussed in
Chapter 4, a total of 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

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

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

 



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

Institution	System Size

	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs1	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs1	CESQGs



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

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

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

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

2-year C/U3

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

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

Vocational3

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

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

Teaching Hospital3

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

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

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

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

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

1.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status. 
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going from large
quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).  As discussed in
Chapter 4, a total of 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming 100 Percent Adoption (2008 $)1

(numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings)

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



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

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

(>50 labs,

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

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

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs, 

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

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

Vocational4

(>50 labs, 

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

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

Teaching Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status. 
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going from large
quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).  As discussed in
Chapter 4, a total of 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

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

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



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

(numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings)

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



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

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

(>50 labs, 

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

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

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs, 

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

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

Vocational4

(>50 labs, 

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

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

Teaching Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status. 
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going from large
quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).  As discussed in
Chapter 4, a total of 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

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

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



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

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



	w/ CAA	w/o 

CAA	w/

CAA	w/o 

CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/

CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o 

CAA	Totals

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

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

Vocational4

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

Teaching Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status. 
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going from large
quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).  As discussed in
Chapter 4, a total of 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

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

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

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

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



	w/ 

CAA	w/o 

CAA	w/ 

CAA	w/o 

CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ 

CAA	w/o 

CAA	w/ CAA	w/o 

CAA	Totals

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

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

2-year C/U4

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

Vocational4

(>50 labs, 

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

(<= 50 labs, 

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

Teaching Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 2.  Under the rule, an eligible academic entity is
allowed to exclude the waste generated from one laboratory clean-out per
laboratory per year in determining the entity’s generation status. 
This may allow some eligible academic entities to reduce their reported
generator status to their typical generator status going from large
quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).  As discussed in
Chapter 4, a total of 27 percent of LQGs and 9 percent of SQGs are
assumed to maintain their typical generator status under the rule.

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

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

5.6	Impacts on State Governments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost Item	Final Regulation 5/



Review of Notifications 1/	$19,739



Initial Inspector Training Costs 2/	$11,480



Annual Inspector Training Costs 3/	$2,296

RCRA Inspections 4/	$738

1/ Costs are for initial notification and will be incurred at adoption;
estimate represents a one-time-only cost.

2/ Cost estimates are for the initial training of inspectors; estimate
represents a one-time-only cost.  

3/ Annual inspector training costs, incurred as new inspectors are
hired.

4/ Incremental inspection costs time includes review of the LMP,
labeling logs, and clean-out information.

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



6.0	QUALITATIVE BENEFITS

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

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

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

Enhanced training of laboratory workers.  The RCRA satellite
accumulation area regulations do not require that students, nor
laboratory workers, in laboratories at eligible academic entities
receive RCRA hazardous waste management training.  To ensure that
students and laboratory workers understand their responsibilities under
Subpart K, the alternative standards require students and laboratory
workers to receive training commensurate with their duties in the
laboratory.  The requirements for training are expected to reduce the
potential for release of hazardous materials.  For example, waste
generated through experimentation may react adversely if incorrectly
stored or managed.  Training requirements for laboratory workers will
ensure that workers are knowledgeable in the storage and compatibility
of waste materials, as well as reagents.

7.0	OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty;

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

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

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

7.1	Executive Order 12866 - Regulatory Planning and Review

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

1)	Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

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

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

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

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

7.2	Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

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

7.3	Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice

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

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

7.4	Executive Order 13045 - Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

On April 21, 1997, the President signed Executive Order 13045 entitled,
“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks.”  The Order applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be
“economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by
the Agency.  

Because this rule is not expected to be economically significant, it is
not subject to Executive Order 13045.  Furthermore, the rulemaking is
intended to reduce potential releases of hazardous wastes to the
environment.  Depending on current and future exposure patterns, any
risks to children associated with such releases will also decline.  The
management practices in this rule, therefore, are intended to reduce the
potential for unacceptable risks to children potentially exposed to the
constituents of concern.

7.5 	Executive Order 12630 - Regulatory Takings

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

7.6	Joint Impacts of Rules

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

7.7	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

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

7.8	Executive Order 13132 - Federalism

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

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

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

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

7.9	Executive Order 13175 - Tribalism

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

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

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

7.10	Executive Order 13211 - Energy Effects

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

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

7.11	National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

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

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 REFERENCES

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

Backus, Bruce.  1999.  Efforts to Deal with Burdensome Impacts of
Hazardous Waste Regulations on Research Institutions. Presented at the
17th Annual College and University Hazardous Waste Conference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A:

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY SCREENING ANALYSIS

The Agency is required to make an initial determination if any
regulatory action may have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.  Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 
The Agency generally conducts a Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis (RFSA) to make this determination.  The purpose of this section
is to present the methodology and findings for the RFSA conducted in
support of the final rule.  This analysis was conducted per the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 

A series of questions regarding potential impacts of the standards on
small eligible academic entity institutions must be answered in the
development of this analysis.   These include:

1.	Is the rule subject to SBREFA notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements?

2.	What types of entities will be subject to the rule?

3.	What types of small entities will be subject to the rule, if any?

4.	Will small entities be adversely affected by the rule?

5.	Will the rule have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities?

A.1	Effects on Small Business

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

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

Any business, small or large, has the option of choosing to be subject
to the alternative standards established by the final rule.  Any
business that chooses to be subject to the final rule would have to
abide by the requirements of the rule.  Accordingly, the business would
be required to meet specific requirements of the rule, including
hazardous waste identification procedures, ensuring laboratory personnel
have requisite training and other requirements.  



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



Facility Type	

NAICS	

Small Business Size Standards

($million/yr or # of employees)

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools	61131	$6.5

Junior Colleges and Technical Institutes	61121	$6.5

Other Technical and Trade Schools	611519	$6.5

Fine Art Schools	61161	$6.5

All other miscellaneous schools and instruction	611699	$6.5

Veterinary Services	5419	$6.5

Hospitals	622	$31.5

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

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

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



A.2		Type and Number of Entities Affected

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

A.3		Economic Effect on Small Entities

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

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



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



Generator Status	

4-year School (NAICS 61131)1	

2-year School (NAICS 61121)2	

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

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



Small Entity LQGs	65	2	0	45	7	119



Small Entity SQGs	110	54	23	52	24	263



Small Entity CESQGs	61	34	33	18	29	175

Total	236	90	56	115	60	557

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

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

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

4/   For other vocational schools, Census data are not available which
provide size distributions.  However average revenues have been
estimated at less than $600,000 per year, indicating that a large
portion of the facilities are small entities.  For purposes of this
analysis it is assumed that 90 percent of these facilities are small
entities.

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

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



A.4	Potential for Significant Impacts on Small Entities

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



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

Institution	LQG	SQG	CESQG	Total

4-year C/U	3	13	0	16

2-year C/U	0	7	0	7

Vocational	0	3	0	3

Teaching Hospitals	4	0	0	4

Non-Profit Research Institutes	1	2	0	3

Total Number of Adopting Small Entities	8	25	0	33

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

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



APPENDIX B:  

CALCULATION OF THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF WASTE CONTAINERS

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



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

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

	LQGs	SQGs	CESQGs	Total # of (Entities) & Containers

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

	4-year CU

and Non-Profit

Research Institute	Large 

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

31,675	0	0	355

5,887,675

	Small 

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

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

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

159,749

2-year CU	Large 

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

9,050

	0	0	37

169,805

	Small 

	(1 x 25 x 45) =

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

7,700	(33 x 22 x 5) =

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

	(45 x 13 x 21) = 12,285

	188

35,387

Vocational

		Large 

	0	0	(4 x 181 x 5) =

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

5,430

	Small 

	0	0	(13 x 22 x 5) =

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

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

12,191

Teaching Hospital	Very Large

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

698,394

	Large

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

5,250	0	0	0	0	62

46,500

	Small

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

5,040

	Very Small

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

400

Total Entities

Total Containers	352

5,965,599	45

757,545	516

130,684	243

61,511	195

48,501	229

56,731	1,580

7,020,571



APPENDIX C:

LABOR RATES AND ANNUALIZATION METHODOLOGY 

FOR BEFORE-TAX COMPLIANCE COSTS 

Labor Rates

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

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

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

Table C-1.   Labor Rates (2008$)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor Class	Applied Employee Position	Base
Rate

(2006 $/hour)

Unloaded	Labor Rate (2008 $/hour)

Unloaded	Labor Rate (2008 $/hour)

Loaded



Chemistry Teacher

	

Professor	$39.47	

$41.08	

$65.33

	

Laboratory Manager	$19.74	

$20.54	

$32.67

	

Student Laboratory Worker	$9.87	

$10.27	

$16.33



Chemical Engineer	

EH&S Personnel	$38.88	

$40.47	

$64.36



Secretary	

Clerical	$16.00	

$16.66	

$26.50



Education Administrators, Post Secondary	

Management	$37.51	

$39.05	

$62.11



Drafter	

Drafting	$22.73	

$23.66	

$37.63





Furnace, Kiln, Oven Operators	

Process Technician	$14.92	

$15.53	

$24.70



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

Annualization Methodology

Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency, in conjunction with OMB must
determine whether a regulation constitutes a “significant regulatory
action.”  One of the criteria for defining a significant regulatory
action, as defined under the Executive Order, is if the rule has an
annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more.  To determine
whether the rule is a significant regulatory action under this
criterion, all costs are annualized on a before-tax basis assuming a
seven percent real discount rate.  The savings attributable to corporate
tax deductions or depreciation on capital expenditures for equipment are
not considered in calculating before-tax costs.

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

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

Annual Before-Tax Costs = (Capital Costs)(CRFn)+ (Annual O&M Costs)

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

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

					(1 + i) n -1		

											= 0.18555   when n = 7

											= 0.29523   when n = 4

											= 0.38105   when n = 3

											= 0.55310   when n = 2

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

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

APPENDIX D:  

TRAINING COST ESTIMATES

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

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

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

The training course fees were estimated using approximate rates
identified using an online review of course providers.  The courses are
typically priced on a commodity basis and should not vary greatly from
market to market.  Many large universities have a web-based training
system for many types of environmental and occupational training
courses.  In this analysis, the training system utilized is assumed to
remain consistent during any rule modifications.  The estimated cost per
person for each training course is presented in Table D-2.



Table D-1.   Estimated Numbers of Lab Workers 

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



EH&S Staff			

22	

8	

NA



Laboratory Manager	

501	

164	

NA



Laboratory Worker	

2,505	

820	

NA



Art Studio Manager	

13	

9	

NA

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



EH&S Staff			

2	

2	

1



Laboratory Manager	

22	

19	

11



Laboratory Worker	

110	

95	

55



Art Studio Manager	

2	

2	

1

Very Large Hospitals	LQG	SQG	CESQG



EH&S Staff			

22	

8	

NA



Laboratory Manager	

501	

164	

NA



Laboratory Worker	

2,505	

820	

NA

Very Small to Large Hospitals	LQG	SQG	CESQG



EH&S Staff			

2	

2	

1



Laboratory Manager	

15	

6	

2



Laboratory Worker	

75	

30	

10

Source:  Estimates derived from percentage-based estimates from the
National Association of College and University Business Officers, NACUBO
2005 Hazardous Waste Survey,
http://www.nacubo.org/documents/business_topics/HazardousWasteSurveyResu
lts.pdf.



Training is assumed to be commensurate with the employees’
responsibilities.  For example, a laboratory manager that completes
shipping manifests is assumed to attend a 24-hour OSHA Hazwopper
training course and a 4-hour course on preparing manifests.  A
laboratory manager or worker that does not complete manifests will not
attend a course on preparing manifests.   

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

The initial training cost (i.e., non-refresher training) of an employee
is annualized using a capital recovery factor over the estimated period
of employment.  A laboratory worker is assumed to turn over every two
years, a laboratory manager every four years, and EH&S staff every seven
years.  The estimated annual cost per employee is presented in Table
D-3.

Table D-2.   Training Course Fees

Training Course	Course Fee

40 Hour OSHA Hazwoper	$520.00

24 Hour OSHA Hazwoper	$310.00

8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher	$130.00

4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher	$125.00

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

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



Table D-3.   Training Costs

Employee Type	Training Courses Attended	Total Cost per Employee



EH&S 	

40 Hour OSHA Hazwoper

4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher

8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher	$1,602



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

24 Hour OSHA Hazwoper

4 Hour DOT Manifest Training and Annual Refresher

8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher	$970





Laboratory Manager/Art Studio Manager - Not Preparing Manifests	

24 Hour OSHA Hazwopper

8 Hour Annual Hazwoper Refresher

	$714



Laboratory Worker	

4 hour Hazardous Communications Training

2 Hour Hazardous Communication Annual Refresher	$163



APPENDIX E:  

DETAILED MODEL FACILITY COST ESTIMATES

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

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

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

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs	SQGs	SQGs

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

 	Very Large	Very Large	Large 	Large 	Large 	Large 

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories





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

Travel	NA	NA	5,626	5,626	450	450

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

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

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

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

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

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

Art Studios

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

Travel	NA	NA	270	270	47	47

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

Labeling	NA	NA	7,544	7,544	594	594

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	140	420	69	207

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

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

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

Facility Costs







BRS Reporting	NA	NA	333	333	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	772	772	515	515

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	228	228	0	0

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

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

Notification	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Teaching Hospitals

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

Travel	4,251	4,251	41	41	NA	NA

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

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

Manifest Cost	140	8,822	140	280	NA	NA

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	0	0	0	0	NA	NA

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

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

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	333	333	333	333	NA	NA

General Administration	772	772	772	772	NA	NA

Contingency Planning	228	228	228	228	NA	NA

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

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

Notification	0	0	0	0	NA	NA

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

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





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

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

	LQGs	LQGs	SQGs	SQGs	CESQGs	CESQGs

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

 	Small 	Small 	Small 	Small 	Small 	Small 

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

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

Travel	247	247	52	52	30	30

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

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

Manifest Cost	140	420	69	207	34	69

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	0	0	0	0	0	0

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

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

Art Studios

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

Travel	34	34	8	8	5	5

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

Labeling	943	943	105	105	293	293

Manifest Cost	140	140	69	69	34	34

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	0	0	0	0	0	0

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

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

Facility Costs







BRS Reporting	333	333	0	0	0	0

General Administration	772	772	515	515	257	257

Contingency Planning	228	228	0	0	0	0

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

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

Notification	0	0	0	0	0	0









Teaching Hospitals	Very Small Hospital

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

Travel	NA	NA	16	16	5	5

HWID	NA	NA	1,352	1,352	322	322

Labeling	NA	NA	293	293	70	70

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	69	69	34	34

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	803	803	402	402

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

Facility Costs







BRS Reporting	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	515	515	257	257

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

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

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

Notification	NA	NA	0	0	0	0

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art Studios

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

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

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

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

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

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	103	103	103	103	15	15	15	15

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,607	4,821	803	2,410	803	1,607	803
1,607

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	9,106	9,106	9,106	9,106	711	711	711	711

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	NA	NA	333	333	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	NA	NA	772	772	515	515	515	515	257	257

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	NA	NA	228	228	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	NA	NA	441	441	441	441	441	441	441
441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	NA	NA	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	NA	NA	NA	NA	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26















Teaching Hospitals

Training	801,376	894,241	801,376	894,241	26,157	26,789	26,157	26,789	NA
NA	NA	NA

Travel	0	3,401	0	3,401	0	33	0	33	NA	NA	NA	NA

HWID	548,239	548,239	548,239	548,239	24,139	24,139	24,139	24,139	NA	NA
NA	NA

Labeling	123,630	123,630	123,630	123,630	5,443	5,443	5,443	5,443	NA	NA
NA	NA

Manifest Cost	140	7,142	69	3,512	140	280	69	138	NA	NA	NA	NA

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	1,290	1,290	1,290	1,290	64	64	64	64	NA	NA	NA
NA

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	81,953	803	40,977	1,607	3,214	803	1,607
NA	NA	NA	NA

Drum Disposal Cost	146,444	146,444	146,444	146,444	146,444	146,444
146,444	146,444	NA	NA	NA	NA

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	333	333	0	0	333	333	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

General Administration	772	772	515	515	772	772	515	515	NA	NA	NA	NA

Contingency Planning	228	228	0	0	228	228	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	NA	NA	NA
NA

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	NA	NA	NA	NA

Notification	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	NA	NA	NA	NA

1.  The very large and large model facilities represented in this table
are assumed to have more than 50 CU, non-profit research institute, and
very large teaching hospital laboratories and five studio laboratories,
as described in Section 4.

2.  Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the hazardous waste
that is commercial chemical product generated from one laboratory
clean-out per laboratory per year in determining generation status. 
This may allow some facilities to reduce their reported generator status
to their typical generator status going from large quantity generator
(LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG to conditionally exempt
small quantity generator (CESQG).

NA = Not Applicable – The “very large” laboratory system size
category is only used as a model for teaching hospitals.  The “large
SQG” laboratory system size category was not used as a model for
teaching hospitals.





Table E-2b.  Estimated Final Rule College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institute, and Teaching Hospital 

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Small Models, 2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs	CESQGs

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/
CAA	w/o CAA

	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

Training	36,861	39,283	36,861	39,283	32,274	33,929	32,274	33,929	32,274
33,929

Travel	0	198	0	198	0	42	0	42	0	24

HWID	31,863	31,863	31,863	31,863	3,058	3,058	3,058	3,058	7,435	7,435

Labeling	7,185	7,185	7,185	7,185	689	689	689	689	1,677	1,677

Manifest Cost	140	420	69	207	69	138	69	138	69	138

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	94	94	94	94	16	16	16	16	19	19

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	4,821	803	2,410	803	1,607	803	1,607	803
1,607

Drum Disposal Cost	175,289	175,289	175,289	175,289	6,540	6,540	6,540
6,540	1,145	1,145

Art Studios

Training	1,445	1,956	1,445	1,956	1,445	1,956	1,445	1,956	714	970

Travel	0	27	0	27	0	7	0	7	0	4

HWID	4,345	4,345	4,345	4,345	483	483	483	483	1,352	1,352

Labeling	980	980	980	980	109	109	109	109	305	305

Manifest Cost	140	140	69	69	69	69	69	69	69	69

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	13	13	13	13	3	3	3	3	3	3

Drum Transportation Cost	1,607	1,607	803	803	803	803	803	803	803	803

Drum Disposal Cost	23,903	23,903	23,903	23,903	1,033	1,033	1,033	1,033
208	208

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	333	333	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	772	772	515	515	515	515	257	257	257	257

Contingency Planning	228	228	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26













Teaching Hospitals	Very Small	Very Small

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	12,394	10,725	12,394	10,725	4,676	3,586

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	13	0	13	0	4

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	1,352	1,352	1,352	1,352	322	322

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	305	305	305	305	73	73

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	69	69	69	69	69	69

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	5	5	5	5	2	2

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	803	803	803	803	803	803

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	8,542	8,542	8,542	8,542	2,025	2,025

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	NA	NA	515	515	257	257	257	257

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	NA	NA	441	441	441	441	441	441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	NA	NA	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	NA	NA	NA	NA	26	26	26	26	26	26

1.  The small model facilities represented in this table are assumed to
have less than 50 CU or non-profit research institute laboratories, less
than five studio laboratories, six SQG teaching hospital laboratories,
and two CESQG teaching hospital laboratories, as described in Section 4.

2. Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the waste generated
from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in determining
generation status.  This may allow some facilities to reduce their
reported generator status to their typical generator status going from
large quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG
to conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).

NA = Not Applicable – The “small LQG” laboratory system size
category was not used as a model for teaching hospitals.





Table E-3a.  Estimated Incremental College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institute, and Teaching Hospital 

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Very Large and Large Models,
2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to
CESQGs2

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/
CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA

	Very Large	Very Large	Very Large	Very Large	Large	Large	Large	Large
Large	Large	Large	Large

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	(5,626)	(1,125)	(5,626)	(1,125)	(450)	(90)	(450)	(90)

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	6,139	6,139	6,139	6,139	223	223	223	223

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	(1,680)	(71)	(5,310)	0	(275)	0	(275)

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	2,150	2,150	2,150	2,150	141	141
141	141

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	(19,283)	(803)	(60,260)	0	(3,214)
0	(3,214)

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Art Studios

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	(270)	(54)	(270)	(54)	(47)	(9)	(47)	(9)

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	294	294	294	294	23	23	23	23

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(71)	(214)	0	(69)	0	(69)

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	103	103	103	103	15	15	15	15

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(803)	(2,410)	0	(803)	0	(803)

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(333)	(333)	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0	(257)	(257)

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(228)	(228)	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	NA	NA	441	441	441	441	441	441	441
441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	NA	NA	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	NA	NA	NA	NA	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26















Teaching Hospitals

Training	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

Travel	(4,251)	(850)	(4,251)	(850)	(41)	(8)	(41)	(8)	NA	NA	NA	NA

HWID	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

Labeling	4,638	4,638	4,638	4,638	204	204	204	204	NA	NA	NA	NA

Manifest Cost	0	(1,680)	(71)	(5,310)	0	0	(71)	(142)	NA	NA	NA	NA

Lab Cleanout Record-keeping	1,290	1,290	1,290	1,290	64	64	64	64	NA	NA	NA
NA

Drum Transportation Cost	0	(19,283)	(803)	(60,260)	0	0	(803)	(1,607)	NA
NA	NA	NA

Drum Disposal Cost	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	0	0	(333)	(333)	0	0	(333)	(333)	NA	NA	NA	NA

General Administration	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0	(257)	(257)	NA	NA	NA	NA

Contingency Planning	0	0	(228)	(228)	0	0	(228)	(228)	NA	NA	NA	NA

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	NA	NA	NA
NA

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	NA	NA	NA	NA

Notification	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	NA	NA	NA	NA





1.  The very large and large models represented in this table are
assumed to have more than 50 CU, non-profit research institute, and very
large teaching hospital laboratories and five studio laboratories, as
described in Section 4.

2.  Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the waste generated
from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in determining
generation status.  This may allow some facilities to reduce their
reported generator status to their typical generator status going from
large quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG
to conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).

NA = Not Applicable – The “very large” laboratory system size
category is only used as a model for teaching hospitals.  The “large
SQG” laboratory system size category was not used as a model for
teaching hospitals.





Table E-3b.  Estimated Incremental College and University, Non-Profit
Research Institute, and Teaching Hospital 

Laboratory Costs by Cost Item and Model (Small Models, 2008 $)1

	LQGs	LQGs	LQGs to SQGs2	SQGs	SQGs	SQGs to CESQGs2	CESQGs	CESQGs

Cost Item	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/ CAA	w/o CAA	w/
CAA	w/o CAA

	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small	Small

CU and Non-Profit Research Institute Laboratories

Training	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	(247)	(49)	(247)	(49)	(52)	(10)	(52)	(10)	(30)	(6)

HWID	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	270	270	270	270	26	26	26	26	63	63

Manifest Cost	0	0	(71)	(214)	0	(69)	0	(69)	34	69

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	94	94	94	94	16	16	16	16	19	19

Drum Transportation Cost	0	0	(803)	(2,410)	0	(803)	0	(803)	402	803

Drum Disposal Cost	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Art Studios

Training	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	(34)	(7)	(34)	(7)	(8)	(2)	(8)	(2)	(5)	(1)

HWID	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	37	37	37	37	4	4	4	4	11	11

Manifest Cost	0	0	(71)	(71)	0	0	0	0	34	34

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	13	13	13	13	3	3	3	3	3	3

Drum Transportation Cost	-	-	(803)	(803)	0	0	0	0	402	402

Drum Disposal Cost	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	0	0	(333)	(333)	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0

Contingency Planning	0	0	(228)	(228)	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441	441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26	26













Teaching Hospitals	Very Small	Very Small

Training	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Travel	NA	NA	NA	NA	(16)	(3)	(16)	(3)	(5)	(1)

HWID	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Labeling	NA	NA	NA	NA	11	11	11	11	3	3

Manifest Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	34	34

Lab Cleanout Recordkeeping	NA	NA	NA	NA	5	5	5	5	2	2

Drum Transportation Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	402	402

Drum Disposal Cost	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Facility Costs

BRS Reporting	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

General Administration	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	(257)	(257)	0	0

Contingency Planning	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	0	0

Lab Management Plan (Initial)	NA	NA	NA	NA	441	441	441	441	441	441

Lab Management Plan (Annual)	NA	NA	NA	NA	98	98	98	98	98	98

Notification	NA	NA	NA	NA	26	26	26	26	26	26

1.  The small model facilities represented in this table are assumed to
have less than 50 CU or non-profit research institute laboratories, less
than five studio laboratories, six SQG teaching hospital laboratories,
and two CESQG teaching hospital laboratories, as described in Section 4.

2.  Under the final rule, a college or university, non-profit research
institute or teaching hospital is allowed to exclude the waste generated
from one laboratory clean-out per laboratory per year in determining
generation status.  This may allow some facilities to reduce their
reported generator status to their typical generator status going from
large quantity generator (LQG) to small quantity generator (SQG) and SQG
to conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG).

NA = Not Applicable – The “small LQG” laboratory system size
category was not used as a model for teaching hospitals.



APPENDIX F:  

DEFINITIONS

Accumulation	A site that does not hold RCRA Interim Status or a RCRA
permit may accumulate hazardous waste for a short period of time before
shipping it off site. The waste must be accumulated in either tanks or
containers; it may not be accumulated in surface impoundments.

Generators of more than 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs) of hazardous waste per
month may accumulate their waste for up to 90 days before shipping it
off site. Generators of 100 kg (220 lbs) to 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs) of
hazardous waste per month may accumulate their waste for up to 180 days
before shipping it off site. If the nearest treatment, storage,
disposal, or recycling facility to which they can send their waste is
more than 200 miles away, they may accumulate their waste for 270 days.
See 40 CFR 262.34.



Authorized State	A State that has obtained authorization from the EPA to
direct its own RCRA program.



Campus	All the sections of the college or university (or other eligible
academic entity) even though they may have separate EPA Identification
Numbers or are separated by public roads.



Central Accumulation Area (CAA)	An on-site hazardous waste accumulation
area subject to either § 262.34(a) (or 262.34(j) and (k) for
Performance Track members) of this part (large quantity generators); or
§ 262.34(d)-(f) of this part (small quantity generators). A central
accumulation area at an eligible academic entity that chooses to be
subject to this subpart must also comply with § 262.211 when
accumulating unwanted material and/or hazardous waste. 



College/University (C/U)	A private or public, post-secondary,
degree-granting, academic institution, that is accredited by an
accrediting agency listed annually by the U.S. Department of Education.



Eligible Academic Entities	A college or university, or a non-profit
research institute that is owned by or has a formal written affiliation
agreement with a college or university, or a teaching hospital that is
owned by or has a formal written affiliation agreement with a college or
university.	



Formal Written Affiliation Agreement	For a non-profit research institute
it means a written document that establishes a relationship between
institutions for the purposes of research and/or education and is signed
by authorized representatives, as defined by § 260.10, from each
institution.  A relationship on a project-by-project or grant-by-grant
basis is not considered a formal written affiliation agreement.  A
formal written affiliation agreement for a teaching hospital means a
master affiliation agreement and program letter of agreement, as defined
by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, with an
accredited medical program or medical school.



Laboratory	An area owned by an eligible academic entity where relatively
small quantities of chemicals and other substances are used on a
non-production basis for teaching or research (or diagnostic purposes at
a teaching hospital) and are stored and used in containers that are
easily manipulated by one person.  Photo laboratories, art studios, and
field laboratories are considered laboratories.  Areas such as chemical
stockrooms and preparatory laboratories that provide a support function
to teaching or research laboratories (or diagnostic laboratories at
teaching hospitals) are also considered laboratories.



Laboratory Clean-out	An evaluation of the inventory of chemicals and
other materials in a laboratory that are no longer needed or that have
expired and the subsequent removal of those chemicals or other unwanted
materials from the laboratory. A clean-out may occur for several
reasons. It may be on a routine basis (e.g., at the end of a semester or
academic year) or as a result of a renovation, relocation, or change in
laboratory supervisor/occupant. A regularly scheduled removal of
unwanted material as required by § 262.208 does not qualify as a
laboratory clean-out.



Laboratory Worker	A person who handles chemicals and/or unwanted
material in a laboratory and may include, but is not limited to,
faculty, staff, post-doctoral fellows, interns, researchers,
technicians, supervisors/managers, and principal investigators. A person
does not need to be paid or otherwise compensated for his/her work in
the laboratory to be considered a laboratory worker. Undergraduate and
graduate students in a supervised classroom setting are not laboratory
workers.



Manifest	The shipped document EPA form 8700-22 and, if necessary, Form
8700-22A, originated and signed by a generator in accordance with the
instructions included in the appendix to 40 CFR Part 262. The
“cradle-to-grave” paperwork must accompany a shipment of hazardous
waste as it moves from the generator to the transporter and eventually
to the hazardous waste management facility.



Non-Profit Research Institute	An organization that conducts research as
its primary function and files as a non-profit organization under the
tax code of 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3).



On-site	RCRA 40 CFR Part 260.10 defines, “on-site” to mean the same
or geographically contiguous property which may be divided by public or
private right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the
properties is at a cross-roads intersection, and access is by crossing
as opposed to going along, the right-of-way.  Non-contiguous properties
owned by the same person, but connected by a right-of-way which he
controls and to which the public does not have access, is also
considered on-site property.



Teaching Hospitals	A hospital that trains students to become physicians,
nurses or other health or laboratory personnel.

Unwanted Material	Any chemical, mixtures of chemicals, products of
experiments or other material from a laboratory that is no longer
needed, wanted or usable in the laboratory and that is destined for
hazardous waste determination by a trained professional. Unwanted
materials include reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials and
materials that may eventually be determined not to be solid waste
pursuant to § 261.2, or a hazardous waste pursuant to § 261.3.  If an
eligible academic entity elects to use another equally effective term in
lieu of “unwanted material,” as allowed by § 262.206(a)(1)(i), the
equally effective term has the same meaning and is subject to the same
requirements as “unwanted material” under this subpart.



Working Container	A small container (i.e., two gallons or less) that is
in use at a laboratory bench, hood, or other work station, to collect
unwanted material from a laboratory experiment or procedure.





 We assume that only eligible academic entities that experience cost
savings by opting into Subpart K will do so.  The 112 eligible academic
entities estimated to participate in Subpart K will see cost savings
based on this analysis.

 U.S. EPA, "Report to Congress: Management of Hazardous Waste from
Educational Institutions," April 1989.

 Satellite accumulation areas are those places where wastes are
generated and where those wastes must initially accumulate prior to
removal to a central area.  The satellite accumulation provisions allow
generators to accumulate up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or 1 quart
of acute hazardous waste) with fewer requirements than for central
accumulation areas, provided the generator complies with the
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34(c)

 Although OSHA regulation 1910.1450 requires training for laboratory
employees that manage or handle hazardous materials, this training is
not necessarily sufficient preparation for making RCRA hazardous waste
determinations.  

 Backus, Bruce.  1999.  Efforts to Deal with Burdensome Impacts of
Hazardous Waste Regulations on Research Institutions. Presented at the
17th Annual College and University Hazardous Waste Conference.

 National Association of College and University Business Officers,
NACUBO 2005 hazardous waste survey,
http://www.nacubo.org/documents/business_topics/HazardousWasteSurveyResu
lts.pdf.  

 The Agency is referring to chemicals or other materials that are no
longer needed, wanted or usable in the laboratory as unwanted materials.
 The Agency prefers this term over the term laboratory waste, which was
used in the University Laboratories XL, because, some fraction of the
unwanted materials may turn out not to be solid or hazardous waste.  

 The specific source codes that EPA used to identify wastes that were
most likely generated in laboratories include G11 (Discarding
off-specification or out-of-date chemicals or products),  G22
(Laboratory analytical wastes), and G09 (Other production or
service-related processes from which the waste is a direct outflow or
result).  Waste streams with source code G09 were considered a
laboratory hazardous waste only if the waste form codes indicated that
they were lab backs (i.e., form code W001 or W004).

 For a full explanation of the methodology used to determine hazardous
waste totals for colleges and universities, teaching hospitals and
non-profit research institutes, see the memo entitled, Lab Rule Data
Analyses, from ICF International to Patricia Mercer, May 1, 2008; and
for hazardous waste information for LQG government research laboratories
and commercial R&D laboratories see the memo entitled, Final Analyses of
Eligible academic entity Laboratory Hazardous Waste, from ICF
International to Patricia Mercer, August 17, 2007.  

 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, October 4, 1993;
Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003.

  In this analysis, photo labs are contemplated primarily within the
categories for colleges and universities, and vocational schools. 

 We summarize the approach here, and refer readers interested in a more
detailed discussion of procedures to: ICF International. May 1, 2008.
“Phase I Lab Rule Data Analysis”. Memorandum from Maribelle
Rodriguez and Earl Harris, ICF to Patricia Mercer, EPA; and ICF
International. May 1, 2008. “Phase II Lab Rule Data Analysis”.
Memorandum from Maribelle Rodriguez, Earl Harris, Jonathan Cohen, and
Nina Perlman, ICF to Patricia Mercer, EPA.

  Under the proposed rule, CESQGs were not eligible and therefore no
range of lab waste was developed for CESQGs; however, CESQGs are
eligible under the final rule.

 Note that G09 was only considered a laboratory hazardous waste if the
waste form codes indicated lab packs (i.e., W001 or W004)

  Specifically, the Agency assumes that only states with historically
high rates of RCRA rule change adoptions (equal to or greater than 85
percent), will codify the rule, allowing eligible academic entities in
those states to adopt the rule. States that adopt at least 85 percent of
EPA rules were determined based on state rule adoption data from the
StATS data system on March 31, 2005.

  Note that photo labs are embedded, where applicable, in the lab counts
for CUs, vocational schools, teaching hospitals, and non-profit research
institutes.

 These size categories are generally reflective of a CU’s hazardous
waste generator status.  For example, CESQGs (96%) and SQG CUs (76%)
typically have fewer than 50 labs and LQG CUs (85%) typically have
greater than 50 labs.

  These size categories are generally reflective of a CU’s hazardous
waste generator status because CESQG (87%) and SQG CUs (68%) typically
have fewer than 5 studios and LQG CUs (63%) typically have greater than
5 studios.

 The Agency suspects the percentage of CESQGs having a CAA (46 percent)
is likely high, and may be due to the survey including CAAs that are
off-site.  In such instances, we would consider the CESQG to not have a
CAA.  Nonetheless, we utilize this percentage for categorization
purposes, as no other relevant data were identified.

 As noted, for modeling purposes, non-profit research institutes were
combined with 4-yr CUs because of similarities in waste generation
statistics and number of laboratories.

  Note that we do not disaggregate the number of labs by CAA operation
status, as it is not relevant to the analysis.

 Email EPA Laboratory Waste Rule to Craig Simons, DPRA Incorporate, from
Mr. Eric Talley, Cornell University, May 19, 2008. 

 Email EPA Laboratory Waste Management rule to Craig Simons of DPRA from
Dr. Bruce Backus, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Environmental Health and
Safety at Washington University in St. Louis, August 1, 2005.  The
Agency recognizes that many eligible academic entities have different
practices regarding the management of generated wastes; however, no data
are available to assess what practices are most common.

 National Association of College and University Business Officers,
NACUBO 2005 Hazardous Waste Survey
(http://www.nacubo.org/documents/business_topics/HazardousWasteSurveyRes
ults.pdf). 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. 

 The State of Nebraska is an example of a state that has banned
placement of liquids from CESQGs in non hazardous landfills. 
http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/

  It is important to recognize that we relied on 2005 Biennial Report
data to determine generator status.  We did not complete an assessment
of long-term generator status changes to determine episodic events.

 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 Incorporated, regarding typical
personnel training and instruction).  Accordingly, because of these
baseline practices, we do not anticipate any incremental costs.  Actual
hazardous waste determination requirements are unchanged insofar as the
determination will still be required for each waste stream generated. 

  One commenter stated that its CU uses between 12,000 and 17,000
containers annually.  Using this figure, and dividing by 525 (501 labs
plus 24 art studios in the CU LQG category) yields a range of
approximately 23 to 32 containers per lab for large CUs.  Note also
that, for two entity categories, we employed alternative container size
mixes that, based on professional judgment, were likely to be more
representative of actual use and would better correlate with the number
of chemicals/wastes a lab may dispose.  Specifically, for small CUs
LQGs, we assumed an additional mix of 35 one-gallon and 10 two-gallon
containers; for SQGs in the same category, we assumed an additional mix
of 5 one-gallon containers.  

 Under the final rule, 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.

 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,   HYPERLINK "http://www.osha"  http://www.osha .
gov/fso/osp/index.html

 Based on communications with college and university personnel familiar
with current practices (Backus, B., 2005).

 It is important to note that for any facility that may not provide
training for employees, training cost estimates associated with the
proposed laboratory waste rule have been underestimated.

  Backus, B. August 1, 2005. Personal Communication with Craig Simons,
DPRA, Inc.

 Email: EPA Laboratory Waste Management rule to Craig Simons of DPRA
from Dr. Bruce Backus, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Environmental Health
and Safety at Washington University in St. Louis, August 1, 2005.

 Email from John DeLaHunt  to Rachel Alford, EPA April 08, 2005.

 Based on state rule adoption data from the StATS data system on March
31, 2005, as discussed in Section 3.2.

 Based on state rule adoption data from the StATS data system on March
31, 2005.

 U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request
Number 261.14 "Notification of Regulated Waste Activity," September 1,
2002.

 Estimated as 0.25 hours of EH&S staff at $64.36 per hour and 0.5 hours
of clerical staff at 26.50 per hour.

 This estimate excludes Alaska, Iowa, and Puerto Rico, which do not have
jurisdiction over the RCRA program.  The costs for notification review
for eligible academic entities in these jurisdictions are borne by the
Federal government.

 Some institutions may be under the jurisdiction of Indian Tribes, and
consequently some percentage of the estimated costs may fall to Tribal
Governments.  However it is not known how many, if any, of the
potentially affected institutions are under Tribal authority.

 http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/index.asp

 $41 per hour x 2 hours x 5 inspectors x 28 adopting jurisdictions
(adopting jurisdictions include 27 states and the District of Columbia).

 $41 per hour x 1.5 hours x 12 inspections per year.

 Note that for facility modeling purposes, we did not identify
incremental impacts related to training costs between the baseline and
final rule, as discussed in Section 4.  However, benefits from enhanced
training may still accrue under the final rule, as it provides for
targeted training of laboratory workers not formerly trained, and
potentially better overall compliance with training requirements
relative to the baseline.

 This $100 million threshold applies to both costs and cost savings.

 Sustainable refers to a principle which says that any development must
not compromise the welfare of future generations for the benefit of
present generations. This principle is designed to support
intergenerational equity (i.e., fairness between generations). 

 U.S. Small Business Administration.  Table of Small Business Size
Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System
Codes.  Effective March 11, 2008.

 The Agency has assumed that only states with historically high rates of
RCRA rule change adoptions (equal to or greater than 85 percent), will
codify the rule, allowing eligible academic entities in those states to
adopt the rule. Furthermore, only eligible academic entities which
experience a reduction in costs are projected to adopt the final rule. 
After applying these limitations, 112 eligible academic entities are
expected to adopt the rule.

 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Implicit Price Deflators for Gross
Domestic Product.  Table 1.1.9. 

 OSHA laboratory standards training costs information was not identified
for estimating training costs.  Accordingly, Hazcom costs presented in
Table D-2 were used as a proxy. 

 PAGE   

 PAGE  2 

June 30, 2008

June 30, 2008

 PAGE   iv 

June 30, 2008

 PAGE   3 

 PAGE   iii 

  PAGE  2 

  PAGE  1 

  PAGE  7 

  PAGE  6 

June 30, 2008

  PAGE  14 

June 30, 2008

  PAGE  15 

  PAGE  21 

  PAGE  30 

June 30, 2008

  PAGE  29 

  PAGE  42 

  PAGE  61 

  PAGE  64 

  PAGE  66 

  PAGE  67 

  PAGE  69 

  PAGE  72 

  PAGE  75 

  PAGE  76 

  PAGE  79 

  PAGE  1 

  PAGE  86 

  PAGE  1 

  PAGE  88 

June 30, 2008

A-  PAGE  1 

A-  PAGE  4 

B-  PAGE  2 

C-  PAGE  3 

D-  PAGE  3 

E-  PAGE  9 

E-  PAGE  2 

F-  PAGE  3 

