98-33326. Lead; Management and Disposal of Lead-Based Paint Debris  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 1998)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 70190-70233]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-33326]
    
    
    
    [[Page 70189]]
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part II
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    Management and Disposal of Lead-Based Paint Debris; Proposed Rule
    
    Temporary Suspension of Toxicity Characteristic Rule for Specified 
    Lead-Based Paint Debris; Proposed Rule
    
    Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 243 / Friday, December 18, 1998 / 
    Proposed Rules
    
    [[Page 70190]]
    
    
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 745
    
    [OPPTS-62160; FRL-5784-3]
    RIN 2070-AC72
    
    
    Lead; Management and Disposal of Lead-Based Paint Debris
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act 
    (TSCA) to provide new standards for the management and disposal of 
    lead-based paint (LBP) debris generated by individuals or firms. In 
    another document in today's Federal Register, the Agency is also 
    separately proposing to suspend temporarily the applicability of 
    regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
    Act (RCRA) which currently apply to LBP debris. The companion RCRA 
    proposal, issued elsewhere in today's Federal Register, is necessary to 
    avoid inconsistent or duplicative Federal requirements under RCRA and 
    TSCA. In addition, this proposal finds LBP debris which is disposed of 
    improperly to be a lead-based paint hazard under TSCA. Today's proposed 
    TSCA standards do not address LBP debris generated by homeowners in 
    their own homes. The Agency is concerned that current RCRA requirements 
    for the identification, management, and disposal LBP debris may be 
    reducing the number of residential LBP abatements by imposing 
    significant disposal costs for LBP debris that is determined to be a 
    hazardous waste under RCRA. Today's proposed rule would provide new 
    management and disposal standards for generators of LBP debris under 
    TSCA. These standards would be generally less burdensome than current 
    RCRA hazardous waste requirements, yet the standards are reliable, 
    effective, safe, and protective of human health and the environment. By 
    reducing costs associated with management and disposal of LBP debris, 
    the Agency believes that the number of abatements will increase thus 
    resulting in a reduction of children exposed to LBP. The Agency is also 
    applying today's proposed standards to LBP debris from renovation, 
    remodeling, public and commercial buildings in order to simplify 
    requirements to generators and transporters of LBP debris.
    
    DATES: Written comments in response to this proposed rule must 
    bereceived on or before February 16, 1999. The Agency is having two 
    public meetings, where oral comments will be heard, one in Washington 
    DC on Thursday, January 14, 1999, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and one in San 
    Francisco, CA on Thursday, January 21, 1999, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    
    ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by regular mail, electronically, 
    or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method 
    as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
    proposal.
        The Washington DC meeting will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 
    2500 Calvert St., NW., Washington, DC 20008, telephone: (202) 234-0700.
        The San Francisco meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Civic 
    Center, 50 Eight St., San Francisco, CA 94103, telephone: (415) 626-
    6103.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: 
    National Lead Information Center at: 1-800-424-LEAD(5323). For 
    technical questions relating to TSCA: Tova Spector, (202) 260-3467; for 
    RCRA-related questions: Rajani Joglekar, (703) 308-8806.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline is provided to assist 
    the reader in locating specific topics in the preamble.
    Table of Contents
    I. General Information
        A. Does this Notice Apply to Me?
        B. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of this 
    Document or Other Support Documents?
        C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
        D. How Should I Handle CBI Information that I Want to Submit to 
    the Agency?
    II. Introduction
        A. Purpose of this Proposed Rule
        B. Background: The Hazards of LBP and Federal Efforts to Reduce 
    Exposure
    III. Statutory Framework and Authority
        A. TSCA Title IV
        B. RCRA Subtitle C and the Toxicity Characteristic Rule
    IV. Overview of Proposed Rule
        A. Summary of Management and Disposal Standards
        B. State and Tribal Programs
    V. Policy Basis for Today's Proposal
        A. Stakeholder Consultation
        B. RCRA Coverage of LBP Debris
        C. LBP Debris Exclusions/Exemptions from RCRA Subtitle C
        D. Difficulties in Conducting the TCLP on LBP Debris
        E. Economic Impacts of RCRA Subtitle C Regulation on LBP 
    Abatements
        F. TSCA Coverage of LBP Debris
    VI. Analytic Basis for Landfill Disposal Options in Today's Proposed 
    Rule
        A. Leaching and Mobility of Lead from LBP Debris
        B. Ground Water Risks from C&D Landfills
        C. Preliminary Conclusions on Disposal of LBP Debris in C&D 
    Landfills
        D. Other Non-hazardous Waste Disposal Options
    VII. Proposed Rule Provisions: Secs. 745.301 - 745.319
        A. General
        B. What Types of Materials Are Covered?
        C. What Activities Are Covered?
        D. Who Must Comply With This Proposal?
        E. When Does LBP Debris Become Subject to This Proposal?
        F. What Structure Types Are Covered?
        G. What Are the Proposed Disposal and Reclamation Options for 
    LBP Debris?
        H. What Controls on the Management of LBP Debris are Included in 
    the Proposal?
        I. What Are the Notification and Recordkeeping Requirements? 
    Sec. 745.313
    VIII. State and Tribal Programs
        A. General
        B. Submission of an Application
        C. State Program Certification
        D. EPA Approval
        E. Withdrawal of Authorization: Sec. 745.356
        F. Model State and Tribal Program
        G. Tribal LBP Debris Management and Disposal Programs
        H. Enforcement and Compliance Provisions
    IX. Rulemaking Record
    X. References
    XI. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
        A. Executive Order 12866
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        E. Executive Order 12875
        F. Executive Order 13084
        G. Executive Order 12898
        H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        I. Executive Order 13045
    
    I. General Information
    
    A. Does this Notice Apply to Me?
    
        You may be potentially affected by this proposed rule if you 
    generate, store, transport, reuse, offer for reuse, reclaim (defined in 
    today's proposal at Sec. 745.303 in the regulatory text) or dispose of 
    LBP debris from abatements, renovations, and demolitions of target 
    housing, and from deleading and demolition of public buildings and 
    commercial buildings (definitions of structure types and activities 
    appear at Sec. 745.303 of the regulatory text).
        Regulated categories and entities would include:
    
    [[Page 70191]]
    
    
    
     
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Examples of Regulated
                     Category                             Entities
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Individuals and firms who generate and/or   Contractors who generate and/
     store LBP debris                            or store LBP debris from
                                                 abatements, renovations,
                                                 and demolitions of target
                                                 housing, and deleading or
                                                 demolition of public
                                                 buildings, and commercial
                                                 buildings
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Waste transporters                          Firms providing
                                                 transportation services for
                                                 LBP debris
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reusers of LBP debris                       Firms or individuals who
                                                 reuse LBP debris
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reclamation facility owner/operators        Owners or operators of
                                                 facilities which accept LBP
                                                 debris for reclamation
    Disposal facility owner/operators           Owners or operators of
                                                 facilities which accept LBP
                                                 debris for disposal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
    guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This 
    table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could 
    potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
    listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether you 
    or your business may be regulated by this action, you should carefully 
    examine the provisions of Secs. 745.301 through 745.319 of the 
    regulatory text. If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
    of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
    ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' unit above.
    
    B. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of this Document or 
    Other Support Documents?
    
        1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
    document and various support documents from the EPA internet Home Page 
    at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select ``Laws and 
    Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the 
    ``Federal Register - Environmental Documents.'' You can also go 
    directly to the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/
    homepage/fedrgstr/.
        2. In person or by phone. If you have any questions or need 
    additional information about this action, please contact the technical 
    person identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section. 
    In addition, the official record for this notice, including the public 
    version, has been established under docket control number OPPTS-62160, 
    (including comments and data submitted electronically as described 
    below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper 
    versions of any electronic comments, which does not include any 
    information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI), is 
    available for inspection from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
    excluding legal holidays. The public record is located in the TSCA 
    Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., 
    Washington, DC 20460. The TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center 
    telephone number is 202-260-7099.
    
    C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
    
        You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or 
    electronically. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket control 
    number (i.e., ``OPPTS-62160'') in your correspondence.
        1. By mail. Submit written comments to: Document Control Office 
    (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 
    Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
        2. In person or by courier. Deliver written comments to: Document 
    Control Office in Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., 
    Washington, DC, telephone: 202-260-7093.
        3. Electronically. Submit your comments and/or data electronically 
    by E-mail to: oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov.'' Please note that you 
    should not submit any information electronically that you consider to 
    be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding 
    the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comment and 
    data will also be accepted on standard computer disks in WordPerfect 
    5.1/6.1 or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form 
    must be identified by the docket control number OPPTS-62160. Electronic 
    comments on this notice may also be filed online at many Federal 
    Depository Libraries.
    
    D. How Should I Handle CBI Information that I Want to Submit to the 
    Agency?
    
        You may claim information that you submit in response to this 
    document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. 
    Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
    procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does 
    not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. 
    Information not marked confidential will be included in the public 
    docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI 
    or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with the technical 
    person identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
    
    II. Introduction
    
        Unit II. of this preamble provides an overview of today's proposed 
    rule and background information; the succeeding units cover the 
    proposal and rationale in more detail.
    
    A. Purpose of this Proposed Rule
    
        This document proposes new management and disposal standards for 
    LBP debris, which is defined at Sec. 745.303 of today's proposed rule 
    to be (1) Debris resulting from demolitions where LBP is present and/or 
    (2) LBP architectural component debris (such as windows, doors, 
    molding, etc) from abatement, renovation, and deleading activities. 
    These proposed standards have been developed under TSCA sections 402 
    and 404 and in coordination with the RCRA Temporary Suspension of the 
    Toxicity Characteristic Proposed Rule for LBP Debris. (For a detailed 
    discussion of the regulatory authority refer to Unit III. of this 
    preamble). The primary objective of this proposed rule is to address 
    obstacles to the removal of LBP hazards in target housing and other 
    child-occupied facilities, such as schools and day-care centers. The 
    Agency has concluded for this proposal that disposal of LBP debris 
    resulting from abatements, deleading, renovations, remodeling and 
    demolitions of target housing, child-occupied facilities, and public 
    and commercial buildings in certain non-hazardous solid waste disposal 
    facilities (discussed in Unit III. of this preamble) is safe, reliable, 
    effective, and protective of human health and the environment. 
    Accordingly, the coverage of today's RCRA and TSCA proposals would 
    include LBP debris generated during deleading, demolitions, and 
    renovation and remodeling activities in all target housing, public 
    buildings, and commercial buildings. EPA believes it is important to 
    provide a clear and consistent regulatory scheme for those who conduct 
    these activities and to avoid the imposition of unnecessary costs on 
    the regulated community.
        The Agency believes the LBP debris management and disposal 
    standards contained in this proposal would provide increased protection 
    of human health by: (1) Reducing the cost of LBP abatements and 
    deleading so as to
    
    [[Page 70192]]
    
    facilitate the removal of LBP from areas that children and others 
    frequent; and (2) addressing gaps in coverage of LBP debris under the 
    current RCRA management and disposal requirements. This proposal is 
    designed to minimize the burdens associated with LBP debris management 
    and disposal through enacting a TSCA program that is less costly than 
    the current RCRA scheme but is nonetheless safe, effective, and 
    reliable.
        The standards in today's proposal would apply only to LBP debris. 
    If LBP architectural component debris or LBP demolition debris contain 
    any substance or constituent subject to regulations (in addition to 
    LBP), the generator would still have to comply with those requirements. 
    For example, if LBP debris also contained asbestos, it would have to be 
    disposed of in facilities subject to both today's proposed standards 
    and to the existing asbestos disposal standards found at 40 CFR part 
    61, subpart M.
        The disposal of soil is not addressed under the proposed TSCA 
    standards. For a further discussion of soil and why it was excluded 
    from this proposed rule please see Unit VII.B.4. of this preamble.
    
    B. Background: The Hazards of LBP and Federal Efforts to Reduce 
    Exposure
    
        The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated 
    approximately 900,000 children, or about 4.4% of children under the age 
    of 6, may have unacceptably high levels of lead in their blood (Ref. 
    1). Lead exposure in young children is of particular concern, because 
    children absorb lead more readily than adults and their nervous systems 
    are particularly vulnerable to the effects of lead. Common sources of 
    lead exposure to children include contaminated dust and paint chips 
    from deteriorating LBP in older homes and renovation activities which 
    disturb LBP. Children with high levels of lead in their body can suffer 
    from learning disabilities, behavioral and learning problems, and 
    mental retardation. The effects of long-term lead exposure or poisoning 
    in children are well-documented: higher school failure rates and 
    reductions in lifetime earnings due to permanent loss of intelligence 
    and increased social pathologies. Fetuses are also at risk, as lead can 
    pass from a pregnant woman's bloodstream to the developing child. There 
    is also some indication that lead exposure contributes to high blood 
    pressure, reproductive and memory problems in adults. Lead has no known 
    use in the body and is difficult to remove from blood and bones in 
    cases where medical intervention is necessary.
        Over the past 2 decades the Federal government has taken a number 
    of steps to address the problems of lead exposure. In 1978, the 
    Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the residential use of paint 
    containing more than 0.06% lead by weight on interior and exterior 
    surfaces, toys, and furniture. EPA placed controls on lead in gasoline 
    in 1978 and lowered the maximum levels of lead permitted in public 
    water systems (40 CFR parts 141 and 142). CDC has set and lowered blood 
    lead levels of concern several times, most recently in 1991. The 
    Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began in 1986 to 
    abate lead hazards in public housing that is being renovated or in 
    structures occupied by a child with elevated blood lead levels. These 
    efforts, and those of State and local agencies and the private sector, 
    have reduced the incidence of lead poisoning.
        It is estimated that more than half the housing stock in the U.S. 
    (an estimated 64 million pre-1980 homes) still contain some LBP (Ref. 
    2). Further, the LBP Hazard Reduction and Financing Task Force 
    established by HUD pursuant to section 1015 of Title X (the LBP Hazard 
    Reduction Act of 1992) estimates that between 5 and 15 million housing 
    units contain hazards associated with the presence of LBP.
        In response to this health threat, Congress enacted the Residential 
    LBP Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Title X of 
    the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 or as Title X) Pub. 
    L. No. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3897. The purposes of Title X include: (1) To 
    develop a national strategy to build the infrastructure necessary to 
    eliminate LBP hazards in all housing as expeditiously as possible; (2) 
    to reorient the national approach to the presence of LBP in housing to 
    implement a broad program to evaluate and reduce LBP hazards in the 
    Nation's housing stock; and (3) to encourage effective action to 
    prevent childhood lead poisoning by establishing a framework for LBP 
    hazard evaluation and reduction and by ending confusion pertaining to 
    reasonable standards of care (Pub. L. 102-550, Title X, Sec. 1003 
    (codified at 42 U.S.C. 4851a)).
        To further these goals, Title X requires that HUD provide public 
    housing authorities and other owners of Federally assisted properties 
    with guidelines for evaluating and reducing lead hazards in their 
    properties. Title X also amended TSCA by adding a new Title IV, which 
    directs EPA to promulgate standards to govern: (1) The training and 
    certification of individuals engaged in LBP activities; (2) the 
    accreditation of training programs; and (3) the process by which LBP 
    activities are conducted by certified individuals (TSCA section 402(a), 
    15 U.S.C. 2682(a)). TSCA Title IV also directs EPA to identify by 
    regulation LBP hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated 
    soil (TSCA section 403, 15 U.S.C. 2683). States and Indian Tribes may 
    seek to administer and enforce these requirements (TSCA section 404, 15 
    U.S.C. 2684).
        As a result of the enactment of Title X, there is an increasing 
    effort to reduce the hazards posed by LBP in residential housing and 
    other buildings. Although there are a number of methods to reduce LBP 
    exposure, abatements (which under TSCA Title IV involve any set of 
    measures designed to eliminate permanently LBP hazards) are typically 
    conducted in situations where LBP exposure has resulted in elevated 
    blood lead levels in children and in other situations where permanent 
    removal of LBP is desired. Abatement efforts frequently result in the 
    production of LBP waste which may currently be subject to regulatory 
    controls under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
    (RCRA) (discussed in Unit V. of this preamble).
        The Agency has spent considerable resources working with health 
    specialists, environmental groups, the lead abatement industry, and 
    State and local governments to develop regulatory options for lead 
    abatement activities. EPA believes that there is an overwhelming 
    consensus that action should be taken as quickly as possible to reduce 
    lead exposure hazards to young children.
        The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction and Financing Task Force 
    established by HUD pursuant to section 1015 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 
    4852a), representing the spectrum of interests affected by LBP issues, 
    released final recommendations on evaluating and reducing LBP hazards 
    in private housing on July 11, 1995. Their report is entitled ``Putting 
    the Pieces Together: Controlling Lead Hazards in the Nation's Housing'' 
    (Ref. 3). In addition, a letter from the Task Force to EPA 
    Administrator Carol Browner dated April 13, 1994, specifically 
    recommended that the Agency ``shift regulation of discarded 
    architectural components from the hazardous waste regulatory program to 
    a tailored management program under TSCA Secs. 402/404'' (Ref. 4). The 
    Task Force recommendations enjoy the support of a broad range of the 
    groups and interests
    
    [[Page 70193]]
    
    affected by LBP activities and regulations. The Agency has given 
    substantial weight to the Task Force recommendations in the development 
    of today's proposal. EPA has developed and is proposing a regulatory 
    approach it believes will both work to speed the conduct of lead 
    abatement and deleading activities (by lowering costs) and, at the same 
    time, ensure that LBP debris from all activities is managed and 
    disposed of in safe, reliable, and effective manner.
    
    III. Statutory Framework and Authority
    
        As noted above, today's action consists of two proposed rules: (1) 
    this TSCA proposal introducing new LBP debris management and disposal 
    standards; and (2) a companion RCRA proposal, issued elsewhere in 
    today's Federal Register, to temporarily suspend the applicability of 
    the RCRA Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule (40 CFR 261.24) to LBP 
    debris. Unit III.A. below discusses TSCA Title IV and Unit III.B. 
    discusses RCRA Subtitle C and the TC Rule.
    
    A. TSCA Title IV
    
        The Agency is issuing today's proposed rule under the authority of 
    sections 402 and 404 of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2682 and 2684). Section 402 of 
    TSCA, LBP Activities Training and Certification, directs EPA to 
    promulgate regulations governing the training and certification of 
    individuals engaged in LBP activities, the accreditation of training 
    programs, and standards for conducting LBP activities. Section 404 of 
    TSCA, Authorized State Programs, provides authority for EPA to 
    authorize States to administer and enforce the requirements established 
    by the Agency under section 402 of TSCA.
        1. LBP activities. On August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45778) (FRL-5389-9), 
    EPA promulgated a rule under sections 402 and 404 of TSCA (hereafter, 
    the LBP training and certification rule) addressing the conduct of 
    certain LBP activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities 
    (40 CFR part 745). The LBP training and certification rule requires 
    that individuals and firms conducting specified LBP activities in 
    target housing and child-occupied facilities receive training from 
    accredited training programs and be certified to conduct LBP 
    activities. The rule also contains standards for conducting LBP 
    activities. The LBP training and certification rule did not 
    specifically address the management and disposal of LBP debris. Today's 
    proposal would create standards under TSCA for the management and 
    disposal of LBP debris and clarifies that other LBP wastes remain 
    subject to RCRA management and disposal requirements.
        The term ``LBP activities'' includes, among other activities, 
    abatements in target housing. 15 U.S.C. 2682(b)(1). TSCA section 401(1) 
    defines ``abatement'' as ``any set of measures designed to permanently 
    eliminate LBP hazards'' including, among other things, all ``clean-up, 
    disposal, and post-abatement clearance testing activities.'' 15 U.S.C. 
    2681(1)(B). Because the term ``abatement'' includes all clean-up and 
    disposal activities, TSCA Title IV provides the Agency with clear legal 
    authority to promulgate regulations establishing standards for the 
    management and disposal of LBP (including any LBP found on debris) 
    resulting from the abatement of target housing. TSCA Title IV defines 
    ``target housing'' generally to mean any housing constructed prior to 
    1978, except for housing for the elderly or those with disabilities 
    (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is 
    expected to reside in such housing for the elderly or persons with 
    disabilities) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. TSCA section 401(17). 15 
    U.S.C. 2681.
        In addition to target housing, the LBP Activities Training and 
    Certification Rule (40 CFR part 745) included in the TSCA section 402 
    requirements a sub-category of public buildings called ``child-occupied 
    facilities.'' A child-occupied facility is defined as `` a building, or 
    portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by 
    the same child, 6 years of age or under, on at least 2 different days 
    within any week (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each 
    day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last 
    at least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 
    hours. Child-occupied facilities may include, but are not limited to, 
    day-care centers, preschools and kindergarten classrooms.'' Thus, EPA 
    is also covering ``child-occupied facilities'' in today's proposal 
    consistent with the LBP Training and Certification rule.
        TSCA section 402 excludes homeowners who conduct LBP activities 
    (including abatement or renovation and remodeling activities) 
    themselves in target housing that they own, unless the housing is 
    occupied by a person or persons other than the owner or the owners' 
    immediate family while the LBP debris is being generated. See Unit 
    VII.C1. below for a further discussion of the homeowner exclusion.
        In the case of public buildings constructed before 1978 and 
    commercial buildings, TSCA section 402 defines the term ``LBP 
    activities'' to include deleading and demolition. ``Deleading'' is 
    defined to mean ``activities conducted by a person who offers to 
    eliminate LBP or LBP hazards or to plan such activities.'' Id. 
    Management and disposal of LBP debris from public and commercial 
    buildings are among the activities a person conducts to eliminate LBP 
    or LBP hazards, and, therefore, are considered to constitute 
    ``deleading'' activities under TSCA section 402(b)(2). Although section 
    402(b)(2) uses terms such as ``identification'' and ``deleading'' 
    instead of the terms used in 402(a) such as ``inspection,'' ``risk 
    assessment,'' and ``abatement,'' EPA believes that, given the 
    similarity of the population to be protected and the nature of the risk 
    they face, the section 402(b)(2) terms can be understood to include the 
    same types of LBP activities as specified in section 402(b)(1). 
    ``Deleading'' under section 402(b)(2) is equivalent to ``abatement'' 
    under section 402(b)(1). As such, management and disposal of LBP debris 
    from deleading and demolition are among the LBP activities EPA has the 
    authority to regulate in public buildings and commercial buildings 
    under TSCA section 402.
        2. LBP hazards. TSCA section 402 (c) addresses LBP risks associated 
    with renovation and remodeling activities in target housing, public 
    buildings and commercial buildings. EPA was directed under section 
    402(c)(1) to develop guidelines for conducting such activities. These 
    guidelines, ``Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home'' (EPA 
    747-R-94-002), were published in April 1994, (updated September 1997) 
    and are available through the National Lead Information Center 
    (Telephone: 1-800-424-LEAD). EPA was also directed under section 
    402(c)(2) to conduct a study of the extent to which renovation and 
    remodeling activities create a ``LBP hazard'' on a regular or 
    occasional basis. EPA has not completed this study, however, the study 
    did not examine management or disposal of LBP debris. EPA is authorized 
    under section 402(c)(3) of TSCA to apply the standards developed under 
    section 402(a) of TSCA for LBP activities to renovation and remodeling 
    activities that create LBP hazards. EPA has determined for this 
    proposal, as described in Unit V.F. of this preamble, that improper 
    management and disposal of LBP debris, including debris from renovation 
    and remodeling activities constitutes a LBP hazard and has included LBP 
    debris from renovation and remodeling activities within the scope of 
    today's proposal. The proposed
    
    [[Page 70194]]
    
    rule determination that improper management and disposal of LBP debris 
    constitutes a LBP hazard is included in the regulatory text of this 
    proposal.
        Today's proposal also includes certain restrictions on the reuse of 
    LBP debris. The proposed restrictions are designed to prevent the 
    transfer of LBP hazards from one structure to another. For example, 
    today's proposal would prohibit reuse of LBP debris which would be 
    identified as a ``LBP hazard.'' For a more in depth discussion of reuse 
    of LBP debris, see Unit VII.G.1. of this preamble.
        3. Certification. Section 402(a)(1) of TSCA directs the Agency to 
    promulgate regulations which ensure that individuals engaged in LBP 
    activities are:
    
        . . .properly trained; that training programs are accredited; 
    and that contractors engaged in such activities are certified. Such 
    regulations shall contain standards for performing LBP activities, 
    taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety.
    
    Today's action proposes standards for the management and disposal of 
    LBP debris which take into account reliability, effectiveness, and 
    safety. It does not, however, create training requirements for 
    individuals engaged in the management and disposal of LBP debris.
        The Agency believes that the activities covered by this proposal, 
    and the requirements governing them do not warrant any specialized 
    training. These activities and requirements are similar, if not, 
    identical to the types of waste management activities already being 
    conducted by generators, transporters, and disposal facility owner/
    operators and parties reusing LBP debris. The proposed requirements are 
    designed to be as simple as possible while continuing to meet the TSCA 
    section 402 standard of ``taking into account reliability, 
    effectiveness, and safety.'' The addition of training requirements 
    would add to the burden of conducting LBP debris management and 
    disposal activities without providing a measurable reduction in risk of 
    exposure to LBP hazards.
        The primary reason for requiring the certification of individuals 
    is to ensure that the individual has received proper training. However, 
    because the Agency would not require specialized training for the 
    management and disposal of LBP debris, Sec. 745.315 proposes to certify 
    all individuals who comply with the requirements of the rule. 
    Certification would be extended only to individuals and firms engaged 
    in management and disposal of LBP debris. To perform other LBP 
    activities, individuals and firms would need to be certified in 
    accordance with TSCA sections 402 and 404 rules (40 CFR part 745). This 
    ``certification by rule'' for management and disposal of LBP debris 
    allows the Agency to efficiently fulfill the TSCA section 402 mandate 
    noted above to ``ensure that. . .contractors engaged in such activities 
    are certified'' without sacrificing safety, effectiveness, or 
    reliability.
        Today the Agency is proposing under section 402 of TSCA to 
    establish a clear regulatory environment covering the management and 
    disposal of LBP debris from abatements, deleading, demolitions, 
    renovations and remodeling from target housing, public buildings, and 
    commercial buildings. The TSCA standards being proposed today represent 
    a common sense approach to management and disposal of LBP debris which 
    addresses the problems associated with current RCRA regulation of LBP 
    debris.
    
    B. RCRA Subtitle C and the Toxicity Characteristic Rule
    
        Subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921-39b, establishes a comprehensive 
    program for the regulation of hazardous waste. In enacting RCRA, 
    however, Congress did not set forth a list of hazardous wastes nor 
    provide a specific test for determining whether a waste is hazardous. 
    Instead, in RCRA section 1004(5), Congress defined ``hazardous waste'' 
    broadly as a ``solid waste'' which ``may. . .pose a substantial present 
    or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly 
    treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise managed.'' Under 
    RCRA section 3001(a), EPA is responsible for defining which solid 
    wastes are hazardous by either identifying the characteristics of 
    hazardous waste or listing particular hazardous wastes.
        In response to the Congressional directive in RCRA section 3001(a), 
    EPA adopted a two-part definition for identified or listed ``hazardous 
    wastes'' (45 FR 33084, May 19, 1980). First, EPA published lists of 
    specific hazardous wastes, in which EPA described the wastes and 
    assigned a ``waste code'' to each of them (40 CFR part 261, subpart D). 
    These wastes are known as ``listed'' hazardous wastes. Second, the 
    Agency identified four characteristics of hazardous waste that are 
    subject to objective measurement: ignitability, corrosivity, 
    reactivity, and toxicity (see 45 FR 33121-22, May 19, 1980). Any solid 
    waste exhibiting one or more of these characteristics is a 
    ``characteristic hazardous waste'' subject to regulation under RCRA 
    Subtitle C (see 40 CFR parts 262, 264 to 268, and 270).
        To measure objectively the characteristic of ``toxicity'' under 
    RCRA Subtitle C, EPA established the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 
    Procedure (TCLP) test as part of the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule. 
    (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990). Under the TC rule, a waste may be a 
    hazardous waste if any chemicals identified in the rule, such as lead, 
    are present in leachate from the waste (generated from use of the TCLP) 
    at or above the specified regulatory levels (40 CFR 261.24).
        Under the TC rule, generators of solid waste must either use their 
    knowledge of the waste or perform the TCLP test using a representative 
    sample of the waste ``as generated'' to determine if the waste exhibits 
    a toxicity characteristic. The regulatory level for lead in the waste 
    extract (i.e., leachate) is 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L). If the 
    leachate of waste contains lead at this level or higher, then the waste 
    is a ``characteristic'' hazardous waste, and the generator must comply 
    with the applicable RCRA Subtitle C requirements in 40 CFR parts 262 
    through 266, 268, and 270.
    
    IV. Overview of Proposed Rule
    
        This Unit is designed to provide a brief review of the main 
    provisions in this proposal. Rationale, analyses supporting the 
    proposal, and the details of the provisions outlined in this section 
    are discussed later in this preamble.
    
    A. Summary of Management and Disposal Standards
    
        1. Scope of proposed standards. This proposal would apply to 
    persons who generate, store, transport, reuse, transfer for reuse, 
    reclaim and/or dispose of LBP debris from the following structures and 
    activities: (1) Abatement, demolition, renovation and remodeling in 
    target housing and child-occupied facilities; and (2) deleading, 
    demolition, renovation and remodeling in public buildings and 
    commercial buildings. The definition of LBP debris at Sec. 745.303 of 
    the regulatory text does not include concentrated LBP wastes such as 
    LBP chips, dust, blast media, solvents, sludges, and treatment 
    residues. Such wastes would remain subject to RCRA requirements 
    (discussed further in Unit VII.B. of this preamble).
        The proposal would not apply to LBP debris generated by persons who 
    conduct abatement or renovation and remodeling activities themselves in 
    target housing in which they reside. Such debris may, also, be exempt 
    from RCRA Subtitle C requirements under the household hazardous waste 
    exclusion. For a further discussion please refer to
    
    [[Page 70195]]
    
    the companion proposed RCRA Toxcity Characteristic Suspension document 
    issued elsewhere in today's Federal Register. Under this TSCA proposal, 
    if a homeowner hires an individual or firm to perform abatement, 
    demolition, or renovation activities and LBP debris is created, the 
    individual or firm would be considered to be a generator of LBP debris. 
    In such cases, the individual or firm would be responsible for 
    compliance with the generator requirements in today's proposal rather 
    than the homeowner.
        One important distinction between this proposal and current RCRA 
    Subtitle C requirements is that today's proposal would apply to all LBP 
    debris (as defined at Sec. 745.303), whereas RCRA Subtitle C 
    requirements apply only if LBP debris is a waste and is determined to 
    be ``hazardous.'' The comprehensive coverage of today's TSCA proposal 
    would resolve the current problems involved in conducting the TCLP test 
    on heterogenous LBP debris and in leaving largely unregulated large 
    quantities of ``non-hazardous'' LBP debris. Today's proposal would have 
    the effect of subjecting all LBP debris to one common sense regulatory 
    scheme including management controls which take into account the risks 
    that LBP debris poses to humans, particularly children--even if LBP 
    debris has not been found to be `` hazardous'' under the TCLP test. See 
    Unit VII.B. through VII.D. of this preamble for an in-depth discussion 
    of the wastes, activities, and structures covered in this proposal.
        2. Disposal/reclamation options. Section 745.309 of today's 
    proposal would allow disposal of LBP debris in a variety of facilities, 
    specifically:
        i. Construction and demolition landfills.
        ii. Nonmunicipal landfills which accept conditionally exempt small 
    quantity generated waste.
        iii. Hazardous waste disposal facilities, including hazardous waste 
    incinerators and landfills.
        iv. In the case of incineration, facilities subject to specified 
    Clean Air Act requirements.
        Each of the disposal options listed above is discussed in greater 
    detail in Unit VII.F. of this preamble. Under the proposal, LBP debris 
    would be able to be reclaimed (either for recovery of lead, or for 
    energy combustion value) only in facilities which meet the Clean Air 
    Act requirements specified at Sec. 745.309(b) of today's proposal.
        3. Controls on transportation, storage, and reuse. The Agency has 
    included proposed controls on the transportation, storage, reuse and 
    transfer for reuse of LBP debris in Secs. 745.308 and 745.311. If 
    finalized, today's proposed rule would stipulate that when LBP debris 
    is stored for more than 72 hours, there must be access limitations, and 
    that LBP debris must not be stored for more than 180 days 
    (Sec. 745.311). There are also proposed limitations on when LBP debris 
    may be transferred for reuse (Sec. 745.311). In addition, the proposal 
    would require that LBP debris be transported in covered vehicles to 
    prevent any inadvertent release of LBP chips or dust (Sec. 745.308). 
    These controls are discussed at length in Unit VII.G. of this preamble.
        4. Notification and recordkeeping. In order to promote compliance 
    and provide for effective enforcement of the standards contained in 
    today's proposal, the Agency has included a proposed requirement that 
    when LBP debris is transferred from one party to another, the recipient 
    should be notified in writing that the material is LBP debris 
    (Sec. 745.313(a)). Both parties to any transfer of LBP debris would 
    also be required to keep a copy of the notification on record for 3 
    years (Sec. 745.313(b)). The notification and recordkeeping 
    requirements are discussed in Unit VII.H. of this preamble.
    
    B. State and Tribal Programs
    
        Today's proposal contains provisions for EPA authorization of State 
    or Tribal LBP debris management and disposal programs. States and 
    Indian Tribes are encouraged to develop and seek EPA authorization of 
    their own LBP debris management and disposal programs. EPA invites 
    States and Tribes to submit their applications 60 days after 
    promulgation of the final rule.
        Sections 745.350 and 745.352 of today's proposal identify key 
    program elements which EPA believes are needed to administer and 
    enforce a LBP debris management and disposal program which is at least 
    as protective as the Federal standards at Secs. 745.307 through 745.319 
    and provides for adequate enforcement. The proposed required program 
    elements found at Sec. 745.350 are: (1) Requirements governing the 
    reuse and storage of LBP debris; (2) requirements governing the 
    transportation of LBP debris; (3) requirements for the disposal or 
    reclamation of LBP debris; and (4) requirements for notification and 
    recordkeeping. The proposed required elements found at Sec. 745.352 are 
    designed to ensure that State or Tribal programs provide adequate 
    enforcement.
        The proposed Secs. 745.341 through 745.359 also contain procedures 
    for States and Indian Tribes to follow when applying to EPA for LBP 
    debris management and disposal program authorization. State or Tribal 
    programs would be required to be ``at least as protective as'' the 
    Federal requirements at Secs. 745.307 through 745.319 and to provide 
    adequate enforcement. In their application, States and Tribes would be 
    free to retain or establish more stringent requirements for the 
    management and disposal of LBP debris in their jurisdictions. State and 
    Tribal program requirements are discussed in Unit VIII. of this 
    preamble.
    
    V. Policy Basis for Today's Proposal
    
        It is important to understand the relationship between today's 
    proposal and the existing RCRA Subtitle C regulations. The regulated 
    community has expressed a variety of concerns about the appropriateness 
    of current RCRA requirements governing the management and disposal of 
    LBP debris.
        In keeping with EPA's responsibility under TSCA Title IV to promote 
    and facilitate the expeditious reduction of risks related to LBP, the 
    Agency has explored alternative options for management and disposal of 
    LBP debris. The result of this investigation is today's proposed rule 
    providing safe, effective, and reliable TSCA management and disposal 
    standards for LBP debris. Sections A through F of this unit describe 
    stakeholder consultation and the policy basis for today's proposal.
    
    A. Stakeholder Consultation
    
        The input and comments of stakeholders have been important in the 
    development of today's proposal. As mentioned in Unit II. of this 
    preamble, the TSCA section 1015 Task Force, which represented a wide 
    array of interested parties, specifically requested that EPA ``shift 
    regulation of discarded architectural components from the hazardous 
    waste regulatory program to a tailored management program under TSCA 
    sections 402/404.''
        In addition, the Agency held a stakeholders' meeting on September 
    28, 1994, to discuss possible approaches to improving management and 
    disposal requirements for LBP debris. Stakeholders participating in the 
    meeting included HUD, State agency representatives, environmental and 
    advocacy groups, labor representatives, professional organizations 
    representing the building and waste management trades and private 
    contractors. The participants provided many opinions and suggestions.
        As noted, many stakeholders have urged EPA to develop today's 
    proposal. A number of commenters on the LBP Training and Certification 
    rule (40 CFR
    
    [[Page 70196]]
    
    part 745) specifically requested that EPA issue disposal standards for 
    LBP debris under TSCA. In response, the Agency has, in today's 
    proposal, identified new disposal options for LBP debris (in addition 
    to those currently allowed under RCRA Subtitle C). The new LBP debris 
    disposal options are discussed in Units VI. and VII. of this preamble. 
    Stakeholder concerns about this proposed rule have generally focused on 
    the risk of ground water contamination resulting from alternative 
    disposal options, a question which is addressed by the analyses 
    conducted for this proposal (as discussed in Unit VI. of this 
    preamble).
        Other stakeholders have expressed concern about the Agency's 
    characterization of the current market for disposal, believing the 
    Agency may have overestimated costs of disposal under RCRA Subtitle C. 
    The Agency has reviewed current data as part of the economic analysis 
    conducted for this proposal and believes that Agency estimates of the 
    current costs of LBP debris disposal are accurate. It is clear from the 
    economic analysis that management and disposal costs for LBP debris 
    which fails the TCLP for lead are high and that these high costs can 
    act as a deterrent to the removal of LBP hazards.
        Stakeholders have also noted that under current RCRA requirements, 
    all LBP debris is not treated equally. First, the RCRA regulations only 
    apply if the debris is a waste. There are no RCRA standards for the 
    management of LBP debris that is intended for re-use. For LBP that is a 
    waste, difficulties conducting the TCLP (discussed in section D. of 
    this unit) can result in insufficient management and disposal standards 
    for potentially hazardous LBP debris (debris which does not exhibit the 
    TC due to anomalous TCLP results) while other, similar LBP debris fails 
    the TCLP and is subject to the strict and costly requirements of RCRA 
    Subtitle C. Stakeholder concerns about the unequal requirements and 
    regulations governing the management and disposal of LBP debris are 
    addressed in today's TSCA proposal.
        In June of 1996, EPA sent a stakeholders' mailing to a large list 
    of parties the Agency had identified as potentially having an interest 
    in today's proposed rule. The stakeholder mailing included an outline 
    of provisions under consideration for inclusion in today's proposal, 
    the draft background document for the Groundwater Pathway Analysis for 
    LBP Architectural Debris conducted in support of today's proposal, and 
    names of Agency staff to contact with questions. Further input by 
    stakeholders as a result of the mailing has been considered during 
    development of today's proposal.
    
    B. RCRA Coverage of LBP Debris
    
        Under current RCRA requirements, all LBP debris is not treated 
    equally. Some LBP debris, specifically, debris which fails the TCLP for 
    lead or is assessed by the generator to exhibit the Toxicity 
    Characteristic, is subject to the strict and costly requirements of 
    RCRA Subtitle C. However, LBP debris which passes the TCLP or is 
    correctly determined by the generator to be nonhazardous solid waste is 
    not subject to Subtitle C management and disposal standards. 
    Unfortunately as further described in section D. of this unit, TCLP 
    results are not reproducible on LBP debris. Therefore, one piece of LBP 
    debris might fail the TCLP in one instance and pass it in another, 
    subjecting the debris to radically different management and disposal 
    requirements in each case.
        During the development of this proposal, it has become clear to the 
    Agency that the two management and disposal standards which apply to 
    LBP debris under RCRA are both inappropriate. In cases where LBP debris 
    is determined to be hazardous, the Agency has concluded that RCRA 
    Subtitle C management and disposal requirements are unnecessarily 
    strict and costly (see Unit VI. of this preamble for a discussion of 
    the analytical basis for this finding).
        Conversely, in cases where LBP debris passes the TCLP or is 
    determined by the generator to be nonhazardous, EPA believes that the 
    absence of clear management and disposal standards is inappropriate and 
    could result in LBP hazards. Today's proposal would resolve the 
    problems associated with RCRA regulation of LBP debris by affording 
    equal and appropriate standards for all LBP debris.
    
    C. LBP Debris Exclusions/Exemptions from RCRA Subtitle C
    
        Currently, certain types of waste are excluded from RCRA hazardous 
    waste requirements. Some LBP wastes, including certain types of LBP 
    debris eligible for exclusion from RCRA requirements, are not covered 
    by today's TSCA proposal (see Unit VII.B. of this preamble for a 
    discussion of LBP wastes not covered by this proposal). The Agency 
    believes that the RCRA exclusions clearly and adequately address 
    management and disposal of these types of waste and new TSCA standards 
    are not necessary for these RCRA-exempted LBP wastes. The exclusions 
    described in the RCRA proposal include: (1) The household waste 
    exclusion; (2) the conditionally exempt small quantity generator 
    (CESQG) exclusion; and (3) the scrap metal exemption. See today's RCRA 
    proposal published elsewhere in today's Federal Register for a thorough 
    discussion of these exemptions.
    
    D. Difficulties in Conducting the TCLP on LBP Debris
    
        An important factor the Agency considered in developing today's 
    proposal is the difficulty of performing reproducible TCLP tests on LBP 
    debris. Proper TCLP testing requires the collection of a representative 
    sample of the waste ``as generated.'' LBP debris typically includes a 
    mixture of painted and unpainted material, and debris generated at a 
    single site often includes a variety of building materials (e.g., wood, 
    metal, brick, plaster, etc.). In addition, different components of the 
    debris frequently have different numbers of layers of paint--often with 
    different formulations--each of which may contain varying amounts of 
    lead. Collection of manageable-sized samples that are representative of 
    the entire heterogeneous waste stream presents obvious challenges.
        A second testing difficulty is sample preparation. The particle 
    size reduction step of the TCLP requires that samples be small enough 
    to pass through a \3/8\-inch sieve. Thus, the various components of the 
    sample may require different procedures in order to accomplish size 
    reduction. For example, grinding may be the most appropriate procedure 
    to apply to plaster components of a sample, but may not be practicable 
    for the sample's metal components. One consequence of this is that 
    paint layers originally on the surface of different types of materials 
    can vary widely after the size-reduction step, ranging from a powdered 
    state to \3/8\ inch-sized pieces. Because of sample preparation 
    difficulties, the result from one sample (e.g., lead present above the 
    regulatory level) may not be duplicated by the result from another 
    sample of the same waste. EPA is concerned that this situation creates 
    an uncertain regulatory environment and that it may lead to 
    inappropriate regulation or lack of regulation of LBP debris.
        A third difficulty is introduced by the physical state of the paint 
    matrix. LBP on exposed exterior components will usually have been 
    subject to years of weathering, since it was almost exclusively applied 
    before the late 1970s. In contrast, paint from interior surfaces would 
    likely not be weathered and the paint matrix would still be intact. It 
    is reasonable to expect that the integrity of the paint matrix would be 
    a
    
    [[Page 70197]]
    
    factor in the leachability of lead from the paint when it is subjected 
    to the TCLP test and that the amount of weathered exterior paint versus 
    interior paint in the sample would affect test results. Variability of 
    weathering in painted surfaces poses a significant problem in 
    collecting a representative, reproducible sample of LBP debris.
        The Agency believes that these factors contribute significantly to 
    variation in TCLP results for LBP debris, causing considerable 
    difficulty in characterizing LBP debris under the Toxicity 
    Characteristic. These problems are reflected both in stakeholder 
    comments and in the Agency's empirical data on TCLP testing of LBP 
    debris.
        In March 1993, EPA completed a study that examined the RCRA status 
    of various waste materials from abatement projects. The study had three 
    components: First, the Agency evaluated data on waste that HUD 
    collected during its nationwide abatement demonstration project (Ref. 
    5). Second, EPA carried out a detailed testing program for two 
    categories of waste--large solid debris and protective plastic 
    sheeting. Third, EPA examined the waste disposal experience of HUD's 
    contractor on the abatement project in order to obtain preliminary 
    estimates of the volume of hazardous waste that was generated and the 
    cost of disposal. The goal was to determine whether the Agency could 
    provide useful guidance to individuals and firms conducting abatements, 
    on the likely result of TCLP testing for various types of waste 
    generated during abatements.
        The study identified three major categories of waste produced 
    during abatements: filtered wash water, solid architectural debris, and 
    plastic sheets and tape used to cover floors and other surfaces. The 
    study concluded that filtered wash water is generally nonhazardous. The 
    results for solid architectural debris demonstrated that LBP debris 
    tends to fail the TCLP when the lead in the paint, as measured by 
    Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS) exceeds 4 milligrams per square 
    centimeters (mg/cm2). However, TCLP failure in the study was 
    not well-correlated with results of on-site testing of lead levels in 
    paint using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) device. The study's failure 
    rate for plastic sheeting tended to depend on the abatement method. For 
    example, removal and replacement tends to generate nonhazardous plastic 
    sheeting, but use of a heat gun for LBP removal tends to result in 
    plastic sheeting which exhibits a hazardous characteristic. The study 
    also notes that other categories of waste, such as sludges, LBP chips, 
    mops and rags, often exceed the RCRA regulatory limit for lead.
        The Agency learned from this study that there is no clear and well-
    defined sampling strategy for LBP debris, and that the TCLP may not 
    give consistently reproducible results for LBP debris. Today's proposal 
    addresses these difficulties.
    
    E. Economic Impacts of RCRA Subtitle C Regulation on LBP Abatements
    
        RCRA Subtitle C requirements for the management and disposal of a 
    hazardous waste include making the determination that the waste is 
    hazardous, the completion of a manifest which tracks waste from the 
    generator to ultimate disposal, maintenance of records for 3 years, 
    treatment subject to land disposal restrictions, transport to a 
    hazardous waste facility, and disposal at a hazardous waste facility. 
    Disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C facility is not required for hazardous 
    lead waste which is treated (i.e., decharacterized) such that it no 
    longer exhibits the Toxicity Characteristic for lead. This alternative 
    requires the generator to test the waste after treatment using the TCLP 
    to demonstrate compliance with the land disposal restrictions at 40 CFR 
    268.9. For further explanation of RCRA Subtitle C, please see Unit 
    III.B. of this preamble or the RCRA companion document to this proposed 
    rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
        RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management and disposal 
    requirements can substantially increase the costs of performing 
    abatements which remove and replace painted architectural components 
    (e.g. doors and windows), a technique which results in a relatively 
    large volume of waste but which minimizes dust generation that can 
    cause further human exposure to LBP. In a 1991 report on its 
    demonstration project on LBP abatement in public housing, HUD noted 
    that the abatement strategy chosen relates directly to a unit's 
    eventual passing of post-abatement dust clearance tests (Ref. 6). HUD 
    found that units which had undergone removal and replacement abatements 
    were more likely to pass clearance tests, suggesting that these 
    activities tend to generate less lead-containing dust than other 
    abatement options.
        Among the materials generated during abatement, LBP architectural 
    component debris (e.g., doors, windows and window frames, external 
    woodwork) represent largest volume. Other materials, such as LBP chips 
    and dust, treatment residues, solvents, blast media, waste water, 
    plastic sheets, and worker equipment and clothing, are generated in 
    smaller quantities, are comparatively easy to sample and analyze, and 
    are not covered under today's proposal (see Unit VII.B. of this 
    preamble for a discussion of the scope of materials covered in this 
    proposal).
        However, the cost of disposal of the large volume of LBP debris 
    which frequently results from removal and replacement abatements can be 
    very high. EPA estimates these costs to be $316 per ton, including the 
    cost of waste analysis, transportation, and disposal. Disposal as a 
    RCRA hazardous waste of an average amount of LBP debris from an 
    abatement project in a single-family home can represent up to 18.9% of 
    the total cost of the project (Ref. 7). Individuals and firms do not 
    necessarily know when beginning an abatement project whether the 
    resulting debris will require management as a hazardous waste, but they 
    may frequently account for this possibility in cost estimates. In some 
    cases, sampling and analysis performed prior to bidding on a project 
    allows estimation of disposal cost, which affects the decision about 
    whether or not to undertake an abatement project.
        RCRA subtitle C requirements may also interfere with achieving 
    economies of scale in LBP debris disposal. RCRA requires that LBP 
    debris which is determined to be hazardous be sent directly from the 
    site of generation to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and 
    disposal facility and thereby precludes the aggregation of waste from 
    different work sites at a central collection site, which would allow 
    for lower transportation and disposal costs.
        As noted above, RCRA Subtitle C testing, transportation and 
    disposal costs can add up to approximately $316 per ton (Ref. 7). The 
    estimated cost to dispose of LBP debris in a construction and 
    demolition landfill, taking into account the costs of the management 
    and disposal requirements in today's proposal is approximately $37.20 
    per ton (including average transport and disposal costs) (Ref. 7). 
    Thus, the management and disposal cost of 100 tons of LBP debris which 
    failed the TCLP from an abatement at a 100 unit apartment complex would 
    be $31,600 under Subtitle C requirements as opposed to $3,720 under 
    today's proposal.
        The alternatives to RCRA hazardous waste management and disposal 
    presented in today's proposal would result in significant cost saving 
    for the conduct of LBP abatement activities. These savings would be 
    achieved primarily by allowing disposal of LBP debris in construction 
    and demolition
    
    [[Page 70198]]
    
    landfills and eliminating the testing and other requirements associated 
    with RCRA Subtitle C regulations. These cost savings could stimulate 
    demand for abatements which would in turn serve to reduce hazards to 
    human health and mitigate the economic impacts associated with human 
    exposure to LBP hazards including: reduced lifetime earnings due to 
    diminished intelligence, increased educational costs, increased health 
    care costs, lost work days and productivity, and costs associated with 
    increased morbidity and mortality. In the public housing sector alone, 
    where a fixed amount of funds are currently designated specifically for 
    modernization including the performance of abatements (24 CFR part 965, 
    subpart H), the cost savings associated with today's proposal would 
    result in an increase in the number of LBP abatements of more than 
    5,454 annually. These economic and risk considerations were also 
    important factors leading the Agency to identify the alternative 
    management controls and disposal options being proposed today.
    
    F. TSCA Coverage of LBP Debris
    
        The legislative history of TSCA Title X shows clearly that by 
    enacting TSCA Title IV, Congress wanted to ``remove all major obstacles 
    to progress, making important changes in approach and laying the 
    foundation for more cost-effective and widespread activities for 
    reducing LBP hazards.'' S. Rep. No. 102-332, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. 111 
    (1992). As the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs 
    stated, `` . . . by establishing realistic, cost-effective procedures 
    for achieving hazard reduction, Title X will speed the clean-up of lead 
    paint hazards . . . and greatly decrease the incidence of childhood 
    lead poisoning.'' (Id. at 112.)
        Given the demonstrated risks that LBP poses and the clear 
    Congressional intent for risks from LBP hazards to be reduced, the 
    Agency is using today's proposal to improve the regulatory program 
    governing the management and disposal of LBP debris from abatement, 
    deleading, renovation, remodeling, and demolition activities.
        It is important to note that although EPA is proposing to suspend 
    the RCRA Subtitle C regulations which apply to LBP debris (see 
    companion RCRA proposal), the Agency is not basing the proposed 
    suspension on a determination that regulation of LBP debris is 
    unnecessary. On the contrary, EPA believes that regulation of the 
    management and disposal of LBP debris is necessary, and that TSCA, 
    Title IV is the more appropriate and effective authority for such 
    regulation.
        EPA is today proposing a determination that improper management of 
    LBP debris or reuse of certain LBP debris constitute LBP hazards.
        According to TSCA, Title IV, ``LBP hazard'' means ``any condition 
    that causes exposure to lead from lead-contaminated dust, lead-
    contaminated soil, lead-contaminated paint that is deteriorated or 
    present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces 
    that would result in adverse human health effects'' as established by 
    EPA. EPA believes that, in the absence of appropriate controls, the 
    management and disposal of LBP debris creates a ``LBP hazard.'' This 
    preliminary determination is a statutory prerequisite to EPA's 
    application of the TSCA management and disposal requirements developed 
    for abatements and deleading activities to debris from renovations. 
    (TSCA section 402(c)(3)).
        Historically, research on hazards associated with residential LBP 
    has focused upon deteriorated paint in homes, rather than on the debris 
    generated during abatements and renovation. In today's determination 
    that improper management of LBP debris is a hazard, the Agency believes 
    that the same exposure pathways are relevant for debris and that, in 
    general, debris by its very nature would tend to pose a greater hazard 
    than deteriorated LBP in a home. This is because, except in the case of 
    re-use, the debris has little or no value and there is no motivation to 
    maintain the integrity of the paint on the debris surfaces. Hence, even 
    the intact paint on debris would be expected to deteriorate (e.g., 
    flake or peel off) rapidly.
        Exposures to lead from deteriorated LBP can occur in several ways. 
    First, children who exhibit pica, a hunger for substances not fit for 
    food, may eat paint chips from accessible waste piles, resulting in the 
    ingestion of substantial amounts of lead (Ref. 8). Also, the 
    deteriorated paint from uncontrolled piles of debris is likely to fall 
    onto the ground resulting in potentially high soil-lead levels. (LBP, 
    as defined in today's proposal, contains at least 5,000 ppm lead.) Such 
    contaminated soil can be inadvertently ingested by children through 
    their normal hand-to-mouth activity. In addition, the lead-contaminated 
    soil can be tracked into a residence, introducing lead into the 
    household dust.
        These scenarios have been demonstrated in various studies that used 
    stable isotopes of lead as tracers. Basically, this technique relies 
    upon the fact that the isotope ratios of lead ores vary by deposit. 
    Consequently, lead-containing products such as LBPs, leaded gasolines, 
    etc. can have unique ratios of the stable isotopes in the lead. 
    Comparison of the isotope ratios in these products to those of 
    environmental media and blood can in some cases identify these products 
    as the source of lead in the environmental media and/or lead in the 
    blood.
        Rabinowitz reports use of this technique to investigate the 
    specific sources and pathways of lead exposure in three cases of 
    chronic, high-level lead poisoning (blood-lead concentrations of 120, 
    83, and 66 g/dl) (Ref. 9). In each case, blood, feces, and the 
    child's home environment (paint, dust, and soil) were sampled and 
    analyzed. All of the children had deteriorated paint present in their 
    homes. Additionally, a series of environmental samples were collected 
    and analyzed to characterize background lead throughout the city.
        In the first two cases, the isotopic composition of the blood 
    (indicative of chronic exposure) and the feces (indicative of exposure 
    during the preceding day) were nearly identical. In the first case, 
    they resembled the paint sample from the child's bedroom wall (which 
    was similar to the exterior soil). In the second case, they closely 
    matched the lead in window sill paint, but not the kitchen wall or 
    garden soil. In the third case, the blood lead was close to that of the 
    paint in the child's bedroom, which was believed to be the source of 
    his chronic exposure, whereas the fecal lead appeared to be similar to 
    fallout from current automobile emissions in the area. While such data 
    do present some ambiguities, they are consistent with paint being the 
    proximate or remote source of the child's lead exposure and the 
    conclusion that, in cases of severe lead poisoning, the lead in the 
    child's blood and feces closely resembles lead in paint on an 
    accessible surface. Additionally, based upon isotopic comparisons 
    between household dust and urban soils, the study also concluded that: 
    (1) In the absence of lead paint, the lead in urban soils and household 
    dust have nearly the same isotopic composition, and (2) lead paint, 
    when present, can be responsible for 20-70% of lead in household dust 
    and much of the lead in yard soil.
        Yaffe, et al. presented two cases which also included measurement 
    of the isotopic ratios of lead in blood, paint, dust, and soil (Ref. 
    10). In both cases, it was unlikely that direct ingestion of paint 
    chips was the cause of the elevated blood-lead concentrations. This was 
    based on the
    
    [[Page 70199]]
    
    facts that: (1) There was no indication that the children were pica-
    prone based upon interviews with the children and their parents, and 
    (2) higher than exhibited blood-lead concentrations would be expected 
    if paint chips were being ingested, given the very high lead levels in 
    the paint.
        The first case involved 10 children with blood-lead concentrations 
    from 28 to 43 g/dl. The isotopic ratios of the children's 
    blood lead were similar, suggesting a common set of lead exposures. 
    These ratios were quite similar to those of soil samples collected 
    around the house and interior dust samples. The close agreement between 
    the average isotopic ratios of exterior paint samples and the soils 
    near the house suggested that the soil was contaminated by the exterior 
    paint, which was badly deteriorated.
        The second case involved twin 2-year-old males with blood-lead 
    concentrations of 37 and 43 g/dl. The isotopic ratios of the 
    twins' blood lead were similar to the soil in their side yard and in 
    the back yard of a nearby house where they often played. These soils 
    had similar ratios to adjacent exterior walls. This suggests that the 
    lead in the soils was primarily derived from the weathering of nearby 
    painted surfaces and that the contaminated soil was a significant 
    source of the twins' exposure. The interior dust sample lead was not 
    similar to the exterior soil or the twins' blood lead.
        The scientific literature also includes several studies that have 
    identified a statistically significant relationship between 
    deteriorated paint and children's blood-lead concentrations. One study 
    suggests that infant blood-lead concentrations are a function of paint 
    deterioration and lack of maintenance of the residence (Ref. 11). In 
    this study, deteriorated housing was classified as deteriorated if the 
    exterior was not well maintained or had peeling paint, as observed from 
    the street. For infants at 12 to 18 months old, geometric mean blood-
    lead concentrations were twice as high in deteriorated housing (33 
    g/dl) than in housing graded as satisfactory (15 g/
    dl).
        Improper management and disposal of LBP debris could cause a LBP 
    hazard by allowing the accumulation and deterioration of LBP in 
    locations, such as uncontrolled waste piles, where it may be accessible 
    to children or contaminate the soil.
        EPA believes that allowing such a LBP hazard to go unregulated 
    would undermine benefits gained through the elimination or reduction of 
    exposure to LBP in target housing, public buildings and commercial 
    buildings. The proposed controls on storage and transportation which 
    are included in today's proposal (see Unit VII.G. of this preamble for 
    a more thorough discussion of these controls) are intended to 
    facilitate safe management of LBP debris.
        In order to prevent the transfer of LBP hazards from one structure 
    to another, today's proposal also prohibits the reuse and transfer for 
    reuse of any LBP debris which is identified as a LBP hazard in today's 
    TSCA proposal. The proposal identifies a LBP hazard as the presence of 
    any deteriorated LBP on the debris. Under today's proposal, reuse or 
    transfer for reuse of LBP debris which is identified as a LBP hazard 
    (i.e., LBP debris with deteriorated LBP) would be prohibited. The 
    prohibition would not apply if the LBP is removed prior to reuse or 
    transfer for reuse. See Unit VII.G.1. of this preamble for a more in-
    depth discussion of reuse of LBP debris.
        In authorizing EPA under TSCA Title IV to promulgate management and 
    disposal standards for LBP debris, Congress did not directly address 
    the conflict that would arise concerning the overlapping jurisdiction 
    of the RCRA TC rule and any new TSCA management and disposal standards. 
    Nor did Congress clearly address the obstacles to the conduct of lead 
    abatements and deleading that could result if LBP debris is determined 
    to be hazardous and subject to the high costs of compliance with RCRA 
    Subtitle C. The concurrent proposal of today's RCRA TC suspension and 
    new TSCA standards should resolve the duplication inherent in the 
    statutory schemes. The new TSCA standards would be less burdensome than 
    RCRA Subtitle C requirements and therefore would remove obstacles to 
    the conduct of LBP activities while identifying standards to prevent 
    improper management, disposal, and reuse of LBP debris.
    
    VI. Analytic Basis for Landfill Disposal Options in Today's 
    Proposed Rule
    
        Identification of safe, effective, and reliable alternative 
    landfill disposal options for LBP debris has been an important 
    component of this proposed rulemaking. EPA believes that landfill 
    disposal is the most common waste management practice for LBP debris, 
    and, as noted above in Unit V. of this preamble, disposal of LBP debris 
    in RCRA Subtitle C landfills (hazardous waste landfills) is very 
    expensive. To identify safe and accessible alternative landfill 
    disposal options, the Agency considered the following information.
    
    A. Leaching and Mobility of Lead from LBP Debris
    
        Under RCRA, LBP debris is considered hazardous if it exhibits the 
    hazardous waste characteristic of toxicity (other hazardous waste 
    characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity are not 
    likely relevant). EPA changed the test to determine whether a waste 
    exhibits the characteristic of toxicity under RCRA in 1990, when the 
    Agency promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule (40 CFR 
    261.24). In addition to adding more hazardous compounds that are 
    regulated under that characteristic, the TC rule replaced the 
    Extraction Procedure (EP) test with the Toxicity Characteristic 
    Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The test was designed to indicate a waste's 
    potential to leach hazardous constituents into groundwater if the waste 
    was co-disposed in a landfill with municipal wastes. In such a 
    landfill, the decomposition of municipal wastes would produce organic 
    acids creating relatively more aggressive leaching conditions than in 
    landfills without co-disposal with municipal waste. (55 FR 11862, March 
    29, 1990.)
        After the promulgation of the TC rule, concerns were expressed to 
    the Agency that TCLP tests conducted on LBP debris for determining lead 
    concentrations in leachate produced higher lead leachate levels than 
    the old EP test. The results of TCLP testing caused certain previously 
    nonhazardous LBP debris to be classified as hazardous waste under RCRA 
    Subtitle C. Thus, the higher lead leachate levels produced by the TCLP 
    effectively limited disposal options for LBP debris. LBP debris that 
    had previously been managed as nonhazardous waste now often became 
    subject to RCRA hazardous waste management requirements. In response, 
    the Agency conducted a study to investigate which LBP wastes would be 
    hazardous under the TC rule. This report contained EP test results from 
    some wastes and TCLP results from others. While the study did not 
    include testing of duplicate samples with both tests, in general, TCLP 
    results were higher than EP results for similar materials.
        The Agency conducted another study to investigate the leaching 
    behavior of lead from LBP wastes under the TCLP as compared with the 
    Agency's ``Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure'' (SPLP). While 
    the TCLP is designed to simulate leaching in a municipal landfill 
    environment, the SPLP is designed to simulate the leaching of wastes 
    disposed in landfills that do not accept municipal garbage
    
    [[Page 70200]]
    
    and other putrescible wastes that could decompose and form organic 
    acids that could aggressively leach hazardous constituents in waste. 
    Accordingly, the SPLP uses a mild inorganic leaching solution that 
    would be typical of acid rain instead of the organic (acetic) acid used 
    in the TCLP. This study indicated that LBP waste leached considerably 
    lower levels of lead in the SPLP than in the TCLP (Ref. 12).
        In a third study of LBP waste, the Agency analyzed more samples of 
    LBP debris using both the TCLP and SPLP methods to compare lead 
    concentration in the leachate (Ref. 13). The results showed that when 
    LBP debris was subjected to the TCLP analysis, the leachate 
    concentration of lead exceeded the TC limit of 5.0 mg/L for lead in 
    approximately 75% of the cases. However, when the samples were 
    subjected to the SPLP, in only a few cases did the lead in leachate 
    exceed 5.0 mg/L. In general, for those materials that comprise LBP 
    debris as defined at Sec. 745.303 of the regulatory text, lead in 
    leachate samples subjected to the SPLP was approximately \1/10\ of the 
    amount of lead measured in leachate samples subjected to the TCLP.
        Lead was the only contaminant for which analysis was done in the 
    LBP debris leachate testing described in the above three studies. This 
    was simply because these studies focused on lead as the principal 
    hazardous constituent in LBP debris. The Agency has no reason to 
    believe that LBP debris would be a TC hazardous waste for any other 
    reason. However, EPA requests comments and information on whether 
    contaminants other than lead associated with LBP debris may cause LBP 
    debris to be identified as a TC hazardous waste.
        The relative immobility of lead in subsurface soils under non-
    highly acidic conditions, and its increased mobility under conditions 
    of higher acidity, has been documented in many studies (Ref. 14). 
    Deutsch provides a review of lead geochemistry and has summarized some 
    of these studies. Lead entering the subsurface environment may be 
    strongly affected by adsorption and/or chemical precipitation onto the 
    solid-phase surfaces. Due to their strong adsorption affinity for lead, 
    soils appear to have large capacities for immobilization of lead. Lead 
    generally is likely to be confined to the top soil layers due to 
    adsorption to the soils. Whatever lead moves past the top soil zone, 
    iron and manganese oxides in the subsurface soil may play the greatest 
    roles in the adsorption and chemical precipitation of lead.
        While Deutsch concludes that lead is one of the least mobile of the 
    common metal contaminants in the environment, he also states that lead 
    can be relatively mobile, as with most metals, if the contaminant 
    source is very acidic and the environment does not have the capacity to 
    neutralize the acid. These conclusions are consistent with the findings 
    of the leaching tests described above. That is, lead, in general, tends 
    to be less mobile in less aggressive acidic conditions than in a highly 
    acidic environment. For LBP debris, the organic acid of the TCLP (which 
    is predictive of conditions in a municipal waste landfill) is 
    considerably more aggressive in leaching lead than the milder, ``acid 
    rain'' type of inorganic acid of the SPLP (nonmunicipal landfill 
    scenario).
        Regardless of the mobility issues noted above, there are certain 
    other environmental conditions in the United States where lead, if 
    soluble, might move appreciably with groundwater. For example, the 
    existence of highly fractured bedrock, or highly porous soils, karst 
    formations, soils with low cation exchange capacity or low organic 
    content, and dissolved organic acids in the groundwater can appreciably 
    increase the mobility of lead in the subsurface soil.
        Upon review of the above-cited studies and the LBP debris leachate 
    testing data, EPA made some preliminary conclusions regarding the 
    potential for lead leachability in non-municipal versus municipal 
    landfills. Based on these data, because non-municipal landfills are 
    likely to be less aggressive environments for the leaching of lead, the 
    Agency focused its further analysis on these types of landfills. 
    Specifically, the Agency has focused on evaluating the safety of 
    disposal of LBP debris in construction and demolition (C&D) landfills.
        However, the Agency recognizes a need to conduct further analyses 
    to come to more definitive conclusions regarding the potential for lead 
    leachability and mobility from disposal of LBP debris under various 
    types of landfill conditions. Therefore, the Agency plans to conduct 
    such additional studies. The results of such analyses could potentially 
    cause the Agency to revise its current conclusions regarding the 
    leachability and mobility of lead in various landfill environments. 
    However, until that time, the Agency maintains its long-held position 
    that, in general, municipal solid waste landfills represent a more 
    aggressive leaching environment for lead (and other hazardous 
    constituents) than many non-municipal landfill environments. Municipal 
    landfill disposal remains the worst-case, generic mismanagement 
    scenario that the Agency has determined, under RCRA, to be a plausible 
    scenario for disposal of non-municipal solid wastes. The TCLP remains 
    the appropriate leaching test to mimic municipal landfill conditions 
    for determining whether solid waste exhibits the RCRA toxicity 
    characteristic. The TCLP is also an important factor used by the 
    Agency, when determining whether industrial process waste should be 
    listed as a RCRA hazardous waste.
    
    B. Ground Water Risks from C&D Landfills
    
        The Agency has performed several studies providing data on leachate 
    quality and on the environmental performance of some C&D landfills.
        One study investigated leachate quality in C&D landfills (Ref. 15). 
    The results indicated that of 21 C&D landfills for which there were 
    leachate data, 18 landfills monitored leachate for lead, and of these, 
    15 had detectable lead concentrations. Although the existence of lead 
    in landfill leachate at levels above the detection level is not 
    unusual, the Agency intends to conduct further studies on the presence 
    of lead in leachate from various types of landfills.
        Additionally, the Agency has performed two studies which provide 
    data on the environmental performance of some C&D landfills. Because 
    these two studies were completed for the purpose of identifying cases 
    of environmental releases from C&D landfills, they do not include data 
    from the vast majority of C&D landfills for which there is no evidence 
    of groundwater contamination.
        The first of the two studies, ``Damage Cases: Construction and 
    Demolition Waste Landfills,'' identified 11 C&D landfills for which 
    there was adequate evidence to find that they may have threatened or 
    damaged human health or the environment (Ref. 16). The second report 
    ``Hazardous Waste Characteristics Scoping Study,'' reviewed the 11 C&D 
    landfill cases documented by the first report but used more stringent 
    criteria pertaining to proof of damage (Ref. 17). In particular, the 
    second report eliminated from consideration 5 of the 11 cases 
    documented by the first report, due to the fact that these 5 C&D 
    landfills, in addition to receiving C&D wastes, also received 
    municipal, hazardous or other improper wastes. Disposal of the 
    inappropriate wastes at these C&D landfills may have adversely 
    influenced their environmental performance.
    
    [[Page 70201]]
    
        Of the six damage cases that are described in the Hazardous Waste 
    Characteristics Scoping Study, two are documented to have lead 
    concentrations in groundwater that, at least once, exceeded a State or 
    Federal standard. The highest reported values of lead in these cases 
    are 0.090 and 0.056 mg/L, exceeding 0.015 mg/L, the Safe Drinking Water 
    action level for lead at the tap. The site having the higher of these 
    lead concentrations in ground water (0.090 mg/L) was operated during 
    its entire life as an illegal dumpsite with no regulatory oversight. 
    Therefore, it is not particularly surprising that release of lead has 
    occurred at this site. The Agency is currently conducting further 
    studies to better understand the circumstances that have resulted in 
    these levels of lead being detected in groundwater at these C&D 
    landfills.
        To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the potential 
    ground water risks of allowing LBP debris to be disposed in C&D 
    landfills, the Agency conducted a groundwater modeling analysis. This 
    analysis was done on a national scale, using groundwater modeling 
    techniques similar to those used in previous EPA rulemakings (e.g., the 
    Toxicity Characteristics Final rule (40 CFR 261.24); the Hazardous 
    Waste Identification Proposed Rule (60 FR 66344, 66406, December 21, 
    1995) (FRL-5337-9); and the Petroleum Refining Listing Determination 
    (62 FR 16747, April 8, 1997) (FRL-5807-5)). The groundwater modeling 
    analysis is summarized briefly below and in more detail in the 
    background document ``Groundwater Pathway Analysis for LBP 
    Architectural Debris,'' a copy of which is in the docket for today's 
    proposal (Ref. 18).
        The Agency recognizes that any ``national'' modeling analysis is 
    limited in its ability to reflect every relevant siting and operational 
    condition at any particular landfill. Public comments and supporting 
    data are invited on this approach.
        1. Parameters used for the groundwater pathway analysis--i. 
    Leachate composition. SPLP data from the 1995 report on LBP debris was 
    used to estimate the concentration of lead from LBP debris in the 
    leachate emanating from the modeled C&D landfills. As noted above, the 
    SPLP data, which represent the disposal of LBP debris in RCRA Subtitle 
    D non-municipal solid waste landfills was designed to be more 
    representative of the C&D landfill environment than the TCLP data, 
    which is intended to represent co-disposal in an environment with 
    wastes containing predominantly municipal garbage. Although the Agency 
    is aware that organic matter and putrescible wastes have been found to 
    be present in some unknown number of C&D landfills, the Agency believes 
    that C&D landfills generally produce less organic acids than municipal 
    solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) (Ref. 19).
        Thus, the SPLP data is more appropriate for this analysis. The 
    Agency specifically solicits comments on the use of the SPLP leachate 
    test data for the LBP debris risk analysis. EPA has initiated studies 
    to obtain data concerning C&D and municipal solid waste landfill 
    leachate quality and to determine whether organic waste disposed in C&D 
    landfills generates leachate that could facilitate the leaching of lead 
    in C&D landfills.
        ii. LBP debris quantity. Using information from a 1990 HUD Report 
    to Congress, the Agency first estimated total quantities of LBP debris 
    likely to be generated from abatement of housing and day-care 
    facilities (Ref. 20). For this estimate, the Agency conservatively 
    assumed that all abatements would result in removal and replacement of 
    painted architectural components from pre-1978 housing and day-care 
    facilities. The analysis estimated that approximately 19 million tons 
    of debris will be generated annually over the next 34 years comprised 
    mainly of three types of LBP debris: doors, exterior wood (e.g., 
    soffits, clapboards), and miscellaneous components (e.g., windows, 
    window sills) (Ref. 20). The Agency used this quantity estimate for LBP 
    abatement debris for the groundwater risk analysis.
        The Agency also estimated total quantities of C&D waste and 
    building construction and demolition waste that is disposed of in C&D 
    landfills (Refs. 18 and 20). Data for waste quantities from renovation 
    and remodeling (R&R) activities are not available separately and are 
    likely to fluctuate from year-to-year. EPA assumed that part of the 
    demolition waste could be attributed to R&R waste. The Agency used the 
    quantities of LBP demolition waste in conjunction with the LBP 
    abatement debris volumes to assess the combined groundwater risks from 
    the disposal of these wastes in C&D landfills (Ref. 18).
        For the ground water risk analysis, based on finite source modeling 
    (i.e., each C&D landfill would contain a pre-determined quantity of LBP 
    debris over the operating life of a landfill), the Agency 
    conservatively assumed that only one-half (900) of the nation's 
    existing 1,800 C&D landfills would receive the 19 million tons of LBP 
    debris for disposal until LBP debris generation ceases (approximately 
    after the next 34 years). It was also assumed that all C&D landfills 
    would receive building construction, demolition, and R&R debris and 
    other C&D waste equally. The Agency requests comment on these 
    assumptions and their use in the groundwater risk analysis.
        iii. C&D landfill characteristics. The Agency has information on 
    the number of commercial C&D landfills (1,800) and a distribution of 
    their sizes (areas). However, the Agency does not have other site-
    specific data (e.g., hydrogeology) for these C&D landfills. These data 
    representing the national distribution of various parameters are 
    required as input for the groundwater risk modeling. Therefore, for the 
    site-specific parameters with no data specific to C&D landfills, the 
    Agency decided to use information from the Industrial Subtitle D 
    Landfill Survey discussed below. The basis for this decision was that 
    both C&D and Industrial D landfills are subject to the Federal 
    regulations at 40 CFR part 257, subpart A (which includes some 
    restrictions on siting of landfills), and therefore, both types of 
    these facilities would be located in similar hydrogeologic regions of 
    the country.
        The national survey of Industrial Subtitle D landfills was 
    conducted in the late 1980's and the results are presented in the 
    background documents to this proposal (Refs. 18 and 22(b), (c), (d)). 
    This stratified and weighted survey represents the nationwide 
    distribution of the Industrial D landfills (e.g., geographic location, 
    area, etc.), and represents the best available data on Industrial 
    Subtitle D landfills on a nationwide basis. The survey represents a 
    snapshot of the Industrial Subtitle D universe in the U.S. and has been 
    used by the Agency in support of other regulatory (RCRA) programs.
        The Agency assumed that the national distribution of C&D landfill 
    locations is similar to that of Industrial D landfills. Therefore, this 
    modeling analysis used the surficial soil and hydrogeologic data from 
    the Industrial D landfill data base in order to represent relevant 
    characteristics of C&D landfills (Refs. 18 and 22(a), (b), (c), (d)).
        These assumptions add some uncertainty to the overall results, the 
    exact magnitude of uncertainty is presently unknown. However, EPA 
    believes it to be low, because the Agency used only the locational 
    information from the Industrial D survey. The errors resulting from 
    some differences in locations are not likely to add major errors in the 
    national Monte Carlo analyses, as long as the respective modeled site 
    locations are in the same hydrogeologic region as the original site 
    locations.
    
    [[Page 70202]]
    
        The Agency has information from a survey on the location of closest 
    downgradient drinking-water wells relative to municipal solid waste 
    landfills, but, similar information is not available for C&D or 
    Industrial D landfills. Therefore, the Agency used the distances to the 
    closest downgradient drinking-water wells from the distribution of 
    distances from the municipal solid waste landfill survey (Refs. 18 and 
    22(b), (c), (d)). In characterizing the drinking-water well 
    distribution with respect to municipal landfills, the Agency collected 
    information on the receptor wells closest to the landfills that were 
    located within a radial distance of 1 mile from the downgradient edge 
    of the landfill. The distribution of receptor well distances from 
    municipal landfills used in the modeling analysis for the LBP debris 
    rule is the best information available to the Agency on distances to 
    receptor wells. As discussed later in this section, for this proposal, 
    the Agency estimated lead concentrations in the drinking water wells 
    located downgradient anywhere within a radial distance of 1 mile. 
    However, the Agency intends to examine the effect on lead levels if the 
    downgradient drinking water wells were restricted in location to the 
    plume centerline or within the plume, as opposed to downgradient well 
    location within a radial distance of one mile, prior to the 
    promulgation of the final rule.
        The data from the Industrial D and municipal solid waste landfill 
    surveys, and all other data used as inputs in the modeling exercise are 
    described in detail in the background documents for this proposal.
        The Agency seeks comment on whether other data exist for C&D 
    landfill locations and drinking water well locations that could be used 
    as inputs to achieve a reduction in the uncertainty in the modeling 
    analysis. Also, the Agency seeks leachate composition data for C&D 
    landfills.
        2. Modeling approach. The Agency modeled lead leachate migration 
    from the bottom of unlined C&D landfills into the subsurface 
    environment, and estimated the overall percentage of C&D landfills 
    across the nation which might indicate peak lead concentrations in the 
    closest down gradient receptor wells above the lead health-based levels 
    (i.e., the Federal regulatory action level for lead in drinking water 
    of 0.015 mg/L). As in previous RCRA rulemakings (e.g., the TC rule), 
    the groundwater modeling analysis used a ``Monte Carlo'' approach to 
    determine the national probability distribution of peak receptor well 
    concentrations over the exposure time horizon. Also, as in many other 
    EPA groundwater risk analyses, a modeling time horizon of 10,000 years 
    was used.
        The Agency recently enhanced the subsurface transport model used to 
    support RCRA rulemakings. The new model is called EPACMTP (EPA's 
    Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products). 
    The model simulates the migration of contaminants in three dimensions 
    to take into consideration the mounding effects beneath waste 
    management units. The model also can simulate the fate and transport of 
    primary constituents and their secondary reaction, decay products. The 
    model is particularly appropriate for the LBP debris risk analysis, 
    because it can consider the nonlinear nature of the lead isotherm (the 
    relation between the mass of lead adsorbed or precipitated on the 
    solids and the concentration of lead in water). The Agency developed a 
    technique for the nonlinear isotherms and this was incorporated in to 
    the EPACMTP analyses for lead (Ref. 23). The Agency also invites 
    comments on the use of this nonlinear isotherm approach.
        For the 1990 TC rule, EPA assumed that the source of contamination 
    was infinite; i.e., waste would be disposed within a landfill 
    continuously, therefore, hazardous constituent loading would never be 
    depleted. For this reason, EPA limited its application to selected 
    chemical constituents which correspond to infinite source behavior. The 
    EPACMTP has a new modeling methodology. The new approach is called 
    Regional Site-Based finite source methodology (Ref. 22(b)). The Monte 
    Carlo-based approach uses all site-specific data and, if some site-
    specific data are not available, it uses data from regional 
    distributions as the default data. If regional data are not available, 
    then data from national distributions are used. The approach uses the 
    best available data and keeps the site-correlated hydrogeological 
    parameters together for each Monte Carlo realization in the modeling 
    analyses.
        For this risk analysis, the Agency used the Regional Site-Based 
    approach to reduce data gaps related to the EPACMTP model input 
    parameters. For example, since site-specific depth-to-groundwater 
    information was not available, EPA used groundwater depth data within 
    the Monte Carlo framework for the geographical region in which the site 
    is located. The Agency assigned specific values for the climatic and 
    hydrogeological model parameters based on the geographical locations of 
    waste disposal sites across the U.S. This approach preserves the 
    interdependence between the site location and the climatic and 
    hydrogeological region.
        As mentioned in the previous section, when specific locational data 
    for C&D landfills were lacking, the Agency used data from the EPA 
    Survey of Industrial Subtitle D Waste Management Facilities. In certain 
    instances (e.g., well location), information from the Agency's 
    municipal solid waste landfill database was used. The underlying 
    assumption in using these data is that, in general, the overall C&D 
    site distribution is similar in terms of climatic and hydrogeological 
    settings to other non-hazardous waste landfill sites. Thus, even if the 
    locations of these types of landfills do not coincide exactly, the 
    regional climatic and hydrogeologic characteristics would not be 
    expected to vary widely and, therefore, would not significantly affect 
    the results in a nationwide Monte Carlo framework. The size of the 
    landfill and waste volumes, however, tend to be significant factors 
    influencing the outcome of the Monte Carlo results as long as the sites 
    under consideration are within the same climatic region. EPA requests 
    comments on whether assumptions related to landfill size and waste 
    volume are appropriate, as well as any supporting data.
        The Agency's modeling approach assessed a full range of fate and 
    transport conditions, including the climatic and hydrogeological 
    properties which were assumed to characterize C&D landfills across the 
    nation. Correlated hydrogeologic characteristics were utilized, based 
    on a survey conducted by the National Water Association, in the Monte 
    Carlo analysis. Impossible combinations of site conditions are rejected 
    in the Monte Carlo analysis; e.g., very low rainfall and high 
    infiltration. However, some assumptions can lead to overestimation or 
    underestimation of risks. For example, the approach assumed that the 
    receptor well may be located anywhere, within a radial distance of a 
    mile from the edge of the landfill, on the down gradient side of the 
    landfill. This may underestimate the risk compared to sites where the 
    receptor well was restricted in location to the plume centerline or 
    within the plume. However, the risk modeling approach also assumes that 
    the receptor wells pump water from the uppermost layer of groundwater 
    below the ground surface, where leachate releases from landfills would 
    be most likely. This may overestimate potential exposure, because many 
    private wells gather water from deeper layers of groundwater which may 
    not be exposed to the landfill leachate. The Agency seeks comment on 
    the modeling
    
    [[Page 70203]]
    
    approach and data to improve the modeling analyses.
        The new model (EPACMTP) and the Regional Site-Based Monte Carlo 
    approach were favorably reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) 
    (Ref. 24). The SAB also provided suggestions for improving the model, 
    which EPA has considered. The Agency's response to the SAB's review is 
    also in the docket for today's proposal (Ref. 25). The Agency believes 
    it is applying the best available modeling approach for this national 
    assessment. EPA may conduct additional analyses using this modeling 
    approach should additional data for C&D landfills become available. 
    This Monte Carlo approach avoids the compounding effects of 
    conservatism that may occur if, for example, single, reasonable-worst-
    case values were used for each parameter.
        The MINTEQA2 (geochemical speciation model) is another EPACMTP 
    model component which determines subsurface lead sorption isotherms 
    under a range of environmental conditions i.e., variation in pH and 
    other factors controlling the subsurface mobility of lead (Refs. 18 and 
    22(a), (b), (c), (d)). The Agency considered the subsurface behavior of 
    lead in combination with waste volume, hydrogeological, climatological 
    and soil characteristics to generate the distribution of concentrations 
    of lead in drinking water wells.
        3. Modeling results. The results of the LBP debris modeling effort 
    are summarized below. These findings result from application of the 
    parameters described in section B.1. of this unit, including the use of 
    SPLP data for leachate composition, to the modeling approach described 
    in section B.2. of this unit.
         The peak receptor well lead concentration would be between 
    zero and 0.015 mg/L over the 110,000 year modeled time frame in 
    approximately 95% of the modeling simulations. (Each simulation 
    corresponds to a single downgradient well located within a radial 
    distance of a mile. Every Monte Carlo simulation picks a different 
    downgradient well location within a radial distance of a mile along 
    with an input data set, including landfill size, soil hydraulic 
    conductivity, etc.)
         In less than 4.5% of the cases would the receptor well 
    lead concentration exceed the Federal regulatory action level for lead 
    in drinking water of 0.015 mg/L over the full modeling time horizon, 
    and most of these exceedances would occur between 5,000 and 10,000 
    years after the disposal of LBP debris in C&D landfills.
         The drinking water action level for lead was not exceeded 
    in any receptor well during the first 500 years and, between 500 and 
    1,000 years, it was potentially exceeded at only one site in 10,000 
    Monte Carlo realized sites (i.e., 0.01%).
        Thus, at the national level, the modeling results indicate that the 
    impact on groundwater at drinking-water wells down gradient of C&D 
    landfills accepting LBP debris appears to be very low and would only 
    occur after an extremely long period of time.
        For this proposal, modeling efforts indicate that the disposal of 
    LBP debris in C&D landfills would be protective of human health at the 
    95th percentile protection level. This level of protectiveness is at 
    the high end (most protective) of the levels of protectiveness that the 
    Agency has used in regulating hazardous wastes under the RCRA program. 
    Historically, the EPA RCRA program has used levels of protectiveness 
    ranging from 85 to 95%, when considering the results of various risk 
    analyses. For example, for the TC rule, the level was 85% (40 CFR 
    261.24); for hazardous waste delistings, the level was 95% (56 FR 
    67197, December 30, 1991); and for the Hazardous Waste Identification 
    Rule for Process Wastes (HWIR), the level was 90% (60 FR 66344, 
    December 21, 1995) (FRL-5337-9).
        4. Monte Carlo Modeling uncertainties. Monte Carlo analysis is a 
    statistical technique that can be used to simulate the effects of 
    natural variability and informational uncertainty which often accompany 
    many environmental conditions. It is a process by which an outcome is 
    calculated repeatedly for many actual situations, using in each 
    iteration randomly selected values from the distribution of each of the 
    variable input parameters. Information on the range and likelihood of 
    possible values for these parameters is produced using this technique. 
    When compared with alternative approaches for assessing parameter 
    uncertainty or variability, the Monte Carlo technique has the 
    advantages of very general applicability, no inherent restrictions on 
    input distributions or input-output relationships, and relatively 
    straightforward computations. Monte Carlo application results can also 
    be expressed in easily understood graphs, can be used to satisfactorily 
    calculate uncertainty, and can be used to quantitatively specify the 
    degree of conservativeness used. With deterministic analyses (e.g., 
    worst-case analyses), an alternative to Monte Carlo, it is often not 
    possible to quantify the level of protection represented by the 
    results. However, some potential limitations may also exist when 
    applying Monte Carlo techniques for modeling risks depending on the 
    data and model utilized for the analyses.
        The Agency has been using the Monte Carlo modeling methodology in 
    various rulemakings for many years. EPA has conducted numerous 
    sensitivity analyses and comparison with deterministic approaches in 
    those rulemakings (e.g., Proposed rule for Petroleum Refining Waste 
    Listing Determination, 62 FR 16747, April 8, 1997). The methodology and 
    the model have gone through many reviews and evaluations by the SAB and 
    EPA's Office of Research and Development (Ref. 24). Additionally, these 
    analyses were subjected to the public review and comment process. 
    Consequently, the model and the modeling methodology have been 
    significantly enhanced over a number of years as noted by the SAB in 
    their latest review.
        The modeling analyses conducted on disposal of LBP debris in C&D 
    landfills have some uncertainties associated with them, like any other 
    modeling analyses. The uncertainties may include the following: (1) The 
    use of the Industrial Subtitle D locational data; (2) the exact nature 
    of the leachate environment in C&D landfills; (3) the likelihood that 
    lead which may leach from LBP debris would form soluble or insoluble 
    organic complexes which may increase or decrease the potential for lead 
    migration; (4) the possibility of the existence of certain environments 
    underneath the modeled C&D landfills that might increase or decrease 
    the migration of lead from C&D landfills, e.g., highly fractured or 
    highly impermeable subsurface environments; (5) the location of 
    drinking water wells, exposed to leachate from C&D landfills, that 
    might not have been factored in the distribution of well locations; (6) 
    limitations associated with model validation and verification; and (7) 
    the difficulties in predicting conditions over very long periods of 
    time into the future.
        This analysis may have certain other limitations. For example, the 
    Agency did not model some specific environmental conditions (e.g., 
    karst and fractured rocks, highly porous soils, presence of excessive 
    amounts of organics in groundwater). To attempt to compensate for the 
    inability to address all possible environmental conditions where C&D 
    landfills may be located, the Agency modeled the disposal of LBP debris 
    conservatively. For example, the Agency made a number of assumptions to 
    help ensure protectiveness: (1) The fate and transport of lead in the 
    subsurface environment was modeled
    
    [[Page 70204]]
    
    over a time horizon of 10,000 years; and (2) The total amount of waste 
    in C&D landfills was doubled by assuming the waste is managed in 900 
    landfills instead of the actual 1,800 landfills.
        The Agency specifically invites comments and data on the areas of 
    uncertainty within the LBP debris modeling analysis.
    
    C. Preliminary Conclusions on Disposal of LBP Debris in C&D Landfills
    
        Based on the data and analyses discussed in sections A and B of 
    this unit, the Agency is proposing to allow disposal of LBP debris in 
    C&D landfills as defined at Sec. 745.303 of the regulatory text.
        The relative immobility of lead in the soil and subsoil environment 
    under non-highly acidic conditions is described in section A of this 
    unit. The results of comparative leaching studies using the SPLP and 
    TCLP tests are generally consistent with those findings. That is, under 
    conditions of higher acidity, the potential for lead to leach from LBP 
    debris is greater than under low acidity conditions. Once released, the 
    subsurface movement of lead depends on the hydrogeologic conditions 
    which may contribute to the increased or decreased movement of lead 
    through soils and subsoils. The environment in a C&D landfill is not 
    considered likely to be highly acidic and generally should not result 
    in high levels of lead leaching. The Agency conducted groundwater 
    modeling (as described in section B of this unit) of the fate and 
    transport of lead from C&D landfills that would accept LBP debris and 
    found in this modeling that the likelihood of contamination of 
    groundwater in drinking-water wells downgradient from C&D/landfills 
    appears to be remote.
        These modeling results (in combination with the TCLP and SPLP data 
    for LBP debris and the general geochemical behavior of lead in the 
    subsurface environment) were convincing factors leading the Agency to 
    propose a rule allowing disposal of LBP debris in C&D landfills. EPA 
    believes that such disposal would, in general, be a safe, effective, 
    and reliable option for management of LBP debris.
        As discussed in section B of this unit, EPA recognizes that 
    uncertainty in the national groundwater modeling analysis exists, 
    especially relating to site-specific conditions that might be present 
    at some C&D landfills. This concern is perhaps reinforced by the Agency 
    studies on environmental releases from a limited number of C&D 
    landfills which raise questions regarding the mobility of lead and the 
    potential for groundwater contamination. As stated above, the Agency is 
    further examining the sites addressed in these studies.
        States with C&D landfills regulate them to some degree, but the 
    extent of regulatory coverage varies. Twenty-nine States require the 
    facilities to have some form of groundwater monitoring and 22 have 
    corrective action requirements. In addition, 22 States require C&D 
    landfills to have a liner and 18 require a leachate collection system 
    (Ref. 15). The State requirements for groundwater monitoring and 
    leachate collection are deterrents against the migration of hazardous 
    constituents.
        EPA is proposing that LBP debris may be disposed of in C&D 
    landfills subject only to the requirements in 40 CFR part 257, subpart 
    A. These criteria do not include groundwater monitoring or corrective 
    action requirements, but do include some location and other standards. 
    The Agency solicits comments on whether it should require disposal of 
    LBP debris only in the C&D landfills with ground water monitoring and 
    corrective action systems. In addition, EPA is interested in comments 
    on whether the Agency should restrict the disposal of LBP debris to C&D 
    landfills which satisfy additional State requirements. Data 
    demonstrating the need for these protective measures is particularly 
    requested, as is information on whether such requirements would 
    significantly limit disposal options for LBP debris.
    
    D. Other Non-hazardous Waste Disposal Options
    
        1. Non-municipal landfills accepting conditionally exempt small 
    quantity generator hazardous wastes. The Agency believes that 
    preliminary conclusions reached regarding C&D landfills meeting 40 CFR 
    part 257, subpart A requirements also apply to industrial and C&D 
    landfills meeting 40 CFR part 257, subpart B requirements that would 
    accept hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity 
    generators (CESQG). These preliminary conclusions, however, do not 
    apply to industrial waste landfills subject to 40 CFR part 257, subpart 
    A requirements since the industrial facilities may generate leachate 
    with different leachate characteristics. If LBP debris were to be 
    disposed of in these landfills, the landfill conditions may accelerate 
    lead leaching. Because EPA has not studied this possibility, EPA has 
    not proposed disposal of LBP debris in industrial solid waste landfills 
    meeting 40 CFR part 257, subpart A requirements.
        Under the 1995 promulgated regulations for the disposal of CESQG 
    wastes (61 FR 34252), CESQG wastes must be disposed of at either: (1) 
    Subtitle C hazardous waste landfills; or (2) municipal solid waste 
    landfills subject to 40 CFR part 258 landfill design criteria; or (3) 
    nonmunicipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units subject to part 257, 
    subpart B requirements. These subpart B requirements for nonmunicipal, 
    nonhazardous waste disposal units accepting the CESQG wastes for 
    disposal include location standards, groundwater monitoring, and 
    corrective action provisions. If LBP debris disposal occurs in C&D 
    landfills or Industrial D landfills accepting CESQG hazardous wastes 
    for disposal, these requirements would, during the landfill operating 
    life and post-closure period, allow detection and control against 
    potential migration of not only lead leachate but also leachate 
    containing other hazardous constituents associated with CESQG hazardous 
    wastes. Because of the recent promulgation of the CESQG waste disposal 
    requirements, it is unclear at this time, how many of the approximately 
    1,800 C&D landfills nationwide will accept CESQG waste.
        Currently, more than half the States require groundwater monitoring 
    and some also require corrective action at C&D landfills. C&D landfills 
    in these States can accept CESQG waste for disposal. The Agency 
    believes it is unlikely that disposal of LBP debris in landfills 
    subject to 40 CFR part 257, subpart B requirements (whether or not 
    these landfills are also C&D landfills) would pose a threat to 
    groundwater. Accordingly, the Agency is also proposing today to allow 
    disposal of LBP debris in those landfills that receive CESQG wastes and 
    are subject to part 257, subpart B requirements. Public comments are 
    invited on this disposal option.
        2. Municipal solid waste landfills. The Agency has not included 
    municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) in the list of allowable 
    disposal facilities at Sec. 745.309 of today's proposed rule. However, 
    the Agency is actively considering whether MSWLFs are acceptable for 
    disposal of LBP debris, and the Agency solicits comments, data and 
    studies that are relevant to this question.
        As stated above, the Agency decided, based on concerns about 
    disposal of LBP debris in the organic-acid-generating environment of 
    MSWLFs, as well as the supporting TCLP and SPLP leachate test data, to 
    focus its analytic effort in preparing for today's proposal on the 
    disposal of LBP debris in C&D landfills. However, the Agency has 
    recently also completed a groundwater risk analysis on the disposal of 
    LBP
    
    [[Page 70205]]
    
    debris in MSWLFs. This risk analysis has been incorporated into the 
    background document describing the groundwater pathway analysis 
    supporting this proposed rule (Ref. 22(a)).
        Although the results of the groundwater risk analysis for MSWLFs, 
    as described in the background document, are quite similar to those for 
    C&D landfills (i.e., the calculated risks are quite low), the Agency 
    remains concerned about the results of the leaching tests that were 
    described earlier. That is, lead leachate levels resulting from use of 
    the TCLP (intended to mimic leaching in a MSWLF) on LBP debris samples 
    were found, in general, to be an order of magnitude greater than those 
    resulting from use of the SPLP (intended to mimic leaching in a non-
    municipal waste landfill). Given these higher rates of predicted 
    leaching of lead from MSWLFs, the Agency decided not to propose a 
    regulation allowing the disposal of LBP debris in MSWLFs at this time, 
    but to study this issue further.
        EPA seeks information concerning quantities of lead-containing 
    waste disposed in municipal landfills, MSWLF leachate characteristics 
    (pH, nature of organic acids) and empirical data for groundwater/
    leachate monitoring from older MSWLFs and new MSWLFs operated according 
    to 40 CFR part 258 requirements. Also, the Agency requests comment on: 
    (1) Whether engineered landfill systems will be operational for 
    extended time periods (since groundwater modeling shows it can take 
    hundreds, if not thousands, of years for lead to reach hazardous 
    concentrations at downgradient drinking water wells), and (2) other 
    options that might be available to ensure that, if EPA allows MSWLFs to 
    receive LBP debris, those options are fully protective of human health 
    and the environment over such long time frames. Depending on the 
    information received, the results of planned EPA analyses, and public 
    comments on this proposal, EPA might allow the disposal of LBP debris 
    in MSWLFs when it finalizes today's proposed rule.
    
    VII. Proposed Rule Provisions: Secs. 745.301 - 745.319
    
    A. General
    
        Should today's TSCA proposal and the companion RCRA proposal become 
    effective, the current Federal requirements that generators of LBP 
    debris waste conduct the TCLP test or use their knowledge to determine 
    whether their waste is hazardous, and Federal requirements that 
    hazardous LBP debris waste be managed and disposed of under RCRA 
    Subtitle C rules would be suspended. Instead, the TSCA standards in 
    today's proposal or the equally (or more) protective standards of an 
    authorized State or Tribal TSCA program would become effective. 
    However, RCRA Subtitle C requirements will remain applicable to LBP 
    debris if it is a hazardous waste by virtue of the presence of any 
    hazardous constituent other than lead or if a State with an authorized 
    RCRA TC program elects not to suspend the applicability of the TC for 
    LBP debris.
        The language in TSCA Title IV compelled the Agency to tailor 
    today's proposed standards to specific types of materials generated 
    during the conduct of specific activities in specific structure types. 
    Sections B., C., and D. of this unit outline the applicability of the 
    proposed rule to material type, activity type, and structure type. 
    Those units also explain the Agency's rationale for the scope of the 
    proposal. Sections F., G., and H. of this unit discuss the disposal 
    options, management controls and notification and recordkeeping 
    requirements respectively.
    
    B. What Types of Materials Are Covered?
    
        The proposed TSCA standards and suspension of the RCRA TC rule are 
    limited in applicability to LBP architectural component debris (e.g., 
    doors, windows, etc.) and LBP demolition debris (both terms are defined 
    in Sec. 745.303 of the regulatory text). As noted at the beginning of 
    this preamble, these types of debris are referred to collectively as 
    LBP debris (the term LBP debris is also defined at Sec. 745.303). LBP 
    refers to paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or 
    in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or more than 0.5 percent by weight. 
    The definitions and coverage of these terms are designed to capture 
    high-volume LBP materials that are the most difficult to test and most 
    costly to manage and dispose of under RCRA Subtitle C. Other types of 
    LBP waste, which would not be considered to be LBP debris such as LBP 
    chips, dust, blast media, solvents or treatment residues (as outlined 
    in section B.1. and B.2. of this unit) are not covered.
        There would be no de minimis threshold for the management and 
    disposal standards in this proposal. Therefore, even small amounts of 
    LBP debris would be subject to the standards in the proposal. The 
    Agency believes that improper management or disposal of any amount of 
    LBP debris represents a LBP hazard.
        The practical effect of this decision is that LBP debris from very 
    small renovations or abatements should be managed and disposed of 
    subject to today's proposed standards (it should be noted that there is 
    a 72-hour grace period for access limitations as described in section 
    H.4. of this unit). EPA believes this is a common sense approach given 
    the potential for children to chew LBP debris, to track LBP into homes, 
    or to otherwise ingest LBP resulting from improper management. An 
    alternative approach might be to set a de minimis level below which LBP 
    debris would not become subject to today's proposed management 
    standards. One option would be to set a de minimis threshold based on 
    the amount of LBP disturbed. The Agency seeks comment on its decision 
    not to set a de minimis level in these proposed standards and 
    specifically requests suggestions and support for possible de minimis 
    levels that could be established in the final rule.
        1. Concentrated LBP wastes not covered. Many abatement approaches 
    are available to address LBP hazards. These various approaches and the 
    wide range of renovation and remodeling techniques generate a variety 
    of LBP wastes. EPA is not, however, including materials (from any 
    activity) other than LBP architectural component debris and LBP 
    demolition debris in today's proposed rule. LBP wastes, such as paint 
    chips or paint dust, blast media, solvents or treatment residues are 
    homogenous in physical characteristics, easy to test for toxicity using 
    the TCLP, and are easily recognizable. Some of these wastes are more 
    likely than LBP debris to consistently and significantly exceed the 
    TCLP regulatory level for lead (see section B.3. of this unit for a 
    discussion of dust and paint chips generated during demolitions). These 
    wastes, because of their high lead concentration, may pose a higher 
    risk of groundwater contamination than LBP debris if disposed of in 
    nonhazardous solid waste (i.e., C&D) landfills. The analyses described 
    in Unit VI. of this preamble did not study these types of concentrated 
    lead-contaminated wastes. The focus of the Agency's risk analysis was 
    LBP debris, as defined at Sec. 745.303 of the regulatory text.
        Given the smaller volume of these concentrated wastes, it is not 
    extremely costly to manage them under RCRA Subtitle C. Also, the 
    regulated community has not identified management and disposal of these 
    wastes as a substantial cost factor in abatement projects. Thus, under 
    today's proposal, waste of this nature would still be subject to RCRA 
    regulations, and
    
    [[Page 70206]]
    
    if it fails the TCLP (i.e., exceeds the TC regulatory limit of 5 ppm 
    for lead in TCLP Leachate) or is determined through knowledge to be 
    hazardous, must still be managed as hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle 
    C. Public comment on this approach and data regarding disposal options 
    for these wastes is encouraged.
        2. Heterogenous/incidental waste not covered. Another category of 
    waste not covered by today's proposal is heterogenous materials 
    incidental to LBP activities. These wastes may include items such as 
    contaminated HEPA vacuum filters, plastic sheeting, worker clothing, 
    and equipment. These materials would remain subject to RCRA 
    requirements under today's proposal. Because of the lower volume of 
    these wastes, if they are determined to be hazardous, generators can 
    manage and dispose of them without excessive costs. Public comment on 
    this approach and data regarding disposal options for these wastes are 
    encouraged.
        3. LBP demolition debris. The definition of ``LBP demolition 
    debris'' in today's proposal includes all materials that result from 
    demolition of target housing, public buildings, or commercial buildings 
    which are coated wholly or in part with or adhered to by LBP at the 
    time of demolition. LBP demolition debris includes dust, paint chips, 
    and other solid wastes which would not be covered under today's 
    proposal if they were generated during a LBP activity other than 
    demolition (for example, abatement or deleading). Quantities of LBP 
    waste are small in proportion to the overall volume of unpainted waste 
    generated during demolition activities. As described in Unit IV. of 
    this preamble, in order to make a RCRA hazardous waste determination, 
    the generator must obtain a representative sample of waste. In the case 
    of demolition debris, a representative sample for a TCLP analysis would 
    represent both painted and unpainted components in the proportion that 
    they are present in the debris. A representative sample of demolition 
    debris subjected to the TCLP, is not likely to exceed the TC regulatory 
    limit for lead because of the small amount of paint in relation to the 
    overall waste stream (Ref. 26). The Agency requests adequate scientific 
    and historical data which would confirm anecdotal evidence that 
    demolition debris never or almost never fails the TC regulatory level 
    for lead.
        Separation of dust, particulate matter, and paint chips from other 
    demolition material is virtually impossible and the Agency believes 
    that requiring such a separation would be impractical and unnecessary. 
    Therefore, all materials generated during demolitions, including dust, 
    paint chips, or other particulate matter are included in the definition 
    of demolition debris and, therefore, covered by today's proposal.
        If LBP demolition debris fails the TC regulatory level for a 
    hazardous constituent other than lead, it would remain subject to all 
    applicable RCRA Subtitle C requirements. Thus, this proposed rule would 
    not relieve a generator of LBP demolition debris from requirements 
    related to other kinds of hazardous waste in the debris. He or she must 
    still determine whether any of the regulatory levels for TC hazardous 
    constituents (other than lead) are met or exceeded or if a listed 
    hazardous waste is present.
        Today's proposal includes management and disposal of LBP debris 
    from demolitions. The Agency believes that demolition debris is 
    identical to debris generated from other types of LBP activities such 
    as abatements and renovations and that waste transporters and disposal 
    facilities will not be able to distinguish LBP demolition debris from 
    other LBP debris. The Agency requests relevant data and comments on the 
    coverage of LBP demolition debris under today's proposal.
        4. LBP contaminated soil. LBP contaminated soil is not included in 
    the scope of this proposal and is not addressed in the proposed RCRA 
    suspension of the TC with respect to LBP architectural components. The 
    Agency has not extended this proposal to include LBP contaminated soil, 
    because the analysis to support its inclusion does not exist at this 
    time. Also, EPA believes that the disposal of LBP contaminated soil has 
    already been addressed, for the most part, in the RCRA household waste 
    exclusion.
        When a homeowner or contractor removes LBP contaminated soil from 
    residences, the LBP contaminated soil is eligible for the household 
    waste exclusion under the existing RCRA hazardous waste rules if the 
    LBP contaminated soil has been contaminated as a result of routine 
    household maintenance or the weathering or chalking of the paint. EPA 
    believes that this exclusion addresses the disposal of LBP contaminated 
    soil in most instances. EPA is interested in receiving comments and 
    information about the potential impacts of the current regulations and 
    exemptions, as well as alternative approaches related to the disposal 
    of LBP contaminated soil from residences. EPA is also interested in any 
    information about the potential number of soil abatements and costs 
    currently associated with the disposal of LBP contaminated soil, 
    whether or not the disposal is conducted pursuant to the RCRA 
    exclusion. Because EPA's interim guidance for addressing LBP hazards 
    recommends soil abatements under certain conditions, EPA is 
    particularly interested in receiving comments on whether the completion 
    and implementation of other lead rules promulgated under the LBP Hazard 
    Reduction Act of 1992 or ``Title X'' (such as 403: Identification of 
    Dangerous Levels of Lead (63 FR 30302, June 3, 1998) (FRL-5791-9); 402: 
    LBP Activities Training and Certification (61 FR 45778, August 29, 
    1996) (FRL-5389-9); 406: Requirements for Lead Hazard Education before 
    Renovation of Target Housing (63 FR 29908, June 1, 1998) (FRL-5751-7); 
    1018: Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead Based Paint and/or Lead 
    Based Paint Hazards in Housing (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996) (FRL-5347-
    9)) would have an impact on the number of soil abatements.
        As also indicated in the proposed RCRA Suspension of the TC for LBP 
    Debris, the Agency does not currently have a sufficient technical basis 
    for reducing the RCRA subtitle C requirements for LBP contaminated 
    soil. In that proposal, EPA is seeking other data to determine whether 
    there is a sound technical basis for reducing the subtitle C 
    requirements that might apply to some soil removed from residences. 
    (Comments on this issue should be submitted in accordance with the 
    instructions in the RCRA proposal, found elsewhere in today's Federal 
    Register). In addition, EPA is interested in receiving information or 
    data on the fate of LBP contaminated soil in landfill environments.
    
    C. What Activities Are Covered?
    
        Today's proposed rule would cover: LBP architectural component 
    debris generated during the following activities: abatement, deleading, 
    renovation, and remodeling at target housing, public buildings, and 
    commercial buildings; and LBP demolition debris generated by demolition 
    of target housing, public buildings and commercial buildings that 
    contain LBP at the time of demolition.
        The Agency is including deleading, renovation, and demolition 
    activities in the scope of today's TSCA proposal, because the LBP 
    debris these activities produce is similar and in some cases identical 
    to the LBP debris produced by abatement activities. The analyses 
    conducted for today's proposal show no significant risk associated with 
    disposal of LBP debris (from any activity or structure) in C&D 
    landfills. These analytical conclusions (as discussed in
    
    [[Page 70207]]
    
    Unit VI. of this preamble) combined with EPA's desire to subject all 
    LBP debris to one clear regulatory scheme resulted in the inclusion of 
    LBP debris from renovation and remodeling, deleading and demolition 
    activities under today's proposal. While the Agency feels that 
    inclusion of these activities under the proposed standards is a logical 
    decision, public comments on the inclusion of the activities and 
    structures in today's proposal are encouraged.
        1. Catastrophic events. Catastrophic events (such as fires, 
    hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.) may, in many cases, 
    generate materials similar or identical to those from planned 
    demolitions. Therefore, today's definition of LBP demolition debris 
    includes debris generated by catastrophic events as well as by planned 
    activities.
        2. Deconstruction. Some stakeholders have brought an activity 
    commonly referred to as ``deconstruction'' to the Agency's attention. 
    Generally, deconstruction refers to the salvaging of building 
    components by removing them prior to demolition or during remodeling 
    and renovation. The goal of such salvaging is usually to resell the 
    components for reuse. Anecdotal evidence leads the Agency to believe 
    that deconstruction may be a fairly common practice in structures 
    containing LBP architectural components (Ref. 27). LBP architectural 
    components which are removed prior to a demolition, as part of a 
    ``deconstruction'' or similar activity would be subject to today's 
    proposal under the definition of renovation at Sec. 745.303:
    
        Renovation means the modification of any existing structure, or 
    portion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted 
    surfaces, unless that activity is performed as part of an abatement 
    as defined in this section. The term renovation includes but is not 
    limited to: the removal or modification of painted surfaces or 
    painted components. . . .
    
        Deconstruction or similar activities would result in the 
    ``disturbance'' or ``removal'' of ``painted structures'' and therefore 
    LBP debris generated during these activities would be subject to this 
    proposal. It should be noted that reuse of LBP debris or transfer of 
    LBP debris for reuse is permitted under this proposal provided that the 
    components are not considered ``LBP hazards'' at the time of reuse or 
    transfer. Reuse of LBP debris is discussed in more detail in Unit 
    VII.G.1. of this preamble. EPA encourages recycling or reuse of waste 
    products when such activities do not pose health threats.
    
    D. Who Must Comply With This Proposal?
    
        Firms and individuals who generate, store, transport, reuse, offer 
    for reuse, reclaim, or dispose of LBP debris from activities which are 
    covered by this proposal, explained in Unit VI.C. of this preamble, 
    would have to comply with today's proposed regulations. Regulated 
    entities include firms and individuals who offer to conduct, in whole 
    or part, abatement, renovation, remodeling, deleading or demolition in 
    target housing and public and commercial buildings for compensation.
        Homeowners who perform abatement, renovation or remodeling work in 
    their own homes are not subject to today's proposed regulations, unless 
    the housing is occupied by persons other than the owner or the owner's 
    immediate family. EPA recognizes, though, that not all abatements, 
    renovation, and remodeling are performed solely by a home owner. In 
    some cases a homeowner may hire a ``handyman'' to assist in conducting 
    these activities. The Agency believes that the homeowner exclusion 
    would not apply to ``handymen'' assisting the homeowner in the work 
    unless the homeowner generates the majority of the LBP debris and 
    serves as direct supervisor to the ``handyman.'' EPA encourages 
    comments on this topic as insufficient information is available to 
    determine how often ``handymen'' are hired to assist in abatements, 
    renovations and remodeling, how much LBP debris is generated by 
    ``handymen,'' and whether or not ``handymen'' should be subject to 
    today's proposal.
        Although homeowners are not subject to today's proposed 
    requirements, EPA encourages homeowners performing work in their own 
    home to follow the management requirements outlined in the proposal. 
    The Agency believes that the management requirements in today's 
    proposal reduce risks to LBP hazards, and homeowners following these 
    management practices will be able to reduce LBP hazards in their home.
        The proposal allows the disposal of debris in C&D landfills, as 
    defined at Sec. 745.303. Although these landfills are subject to the 
    RCRA requirements in 40 CFR part 257, subparts A or B, the proposal 
    does not require that, for purposes of these TSCA rules, the landfills 
    in fact be in compliance with 40 CFR part 257, subparts A or B. Because 
    EPA generally lacks the authority under RCRA to enforce the 
    requirements at 40 CFR part 257, subpart A (44 FR 53438, September 13, 
    1979), EPA requests comment on whether the final TSCA rule should 
    specify that C&D landfills accepting LBP debris must be in compliance 
    with 40 CFR part 257, subpart A or B.
        Being in compliance would require adherence to all or a subset of 
    the provisions in 40 CFR part 257 that are relevant to LBP debris. 
    Examples include limiting access to the landfill and groundwater 
    monitoring requirements. With TSCA authority, EPA would be able to 
    enforce these requirements on any landfill that accepts LBP debris. EPA 
    recognizes that many states already enforce 40 CFR part 257 
    requirements under their State RCRA programs. EPA expects that, even 
    with Federal TSCA enforcement authority regarding the provisions of 40 
    CFR part 257, subpart A for C&D landfills accepting LBP debris, most 
    enforcement actions for such landfills would be taken by states. If the 
    proposed rule were modified to provide for Federal enforcement of RCRA 
    40 CFR part 257, subpart A requirements for C&D landfills accepting LBP 
    debris, a necessary consequence is that, as part of a state approval 
    process, EPA would evaluate each State's program to determine the 
    adequacy of enforcement capability of state requirements that are as 
    least as stringent as those found at 40 CFR part 257. EPA requests 
    public comments on whether landfills that accept LBP debris and are 
    found not to be in compliance with 40 CFR part 257, subpart A or B, 
    should be subject to enforcement under TSCA. EPA would also like 
    comment on whether enforcement of 40 CFR part 257, subpart A or B under 
    TSCA would confuse and complicate the requirements for disposal of LBP 
    debris. For example, a landfill owner or operator may become confused 
    between the requirements under RCRA for landfills, and the requirements 
    under TSCA for disposal, and inadvertently fall out of compliance from 
    lack of understanding of the requirements for disposal of LBP debris. 
    Finally, the Agency requests comment on whether imposition of TSCA 
    enforcement on landfills that accept LBP debris would discourage or 
    deter C&D landfill owners and operators from accepting this material.
    
    E. When Does LBP Debris Become Subject to This Proposal?
    
        In the case of LBP demolition debris, the proposal is designed to 
    cover all material that is created by demolitions when LBP is present 
    in the structure being demolished. The definition of LBP demolition 
    debris at Sec. 745.303 states:
    
        LBP Demolition Debris means any solid material which results 
    from the demolition of target housing, public buildings, or
    
    [[Page 70208]]
    
    commercial buildings which are coated wholly or in part with or 
    adhered to by LBP at the time of demolition.
    
    This definition subjects LBP debris generated by demolitions to the 
    standards in this proposal as soon as a demolition occurs.
        In the case of LBP architectural component debris, the definition 
    at Sec. 745.303 states:
    
        . . .LBP architectural component debris is generated when an 
    architectural component which is coated wholly or in part with or 
    adhered to by LBP is displaced and separated from commercial 
    buildings, public buildings, or target housing as a result of 
    abatement, deleading, renovation or remodeling activities. . . .
    
        This clause in the definition makes LBP debris subject to today's 
    proposal when it is ``separated'' from a structure. In the context of 
    this definition, ``separated'' does not necessarily imply that the 
    component is taken out of the structure, although it may be. For 
    example, doors detached from a structure and stacked inside that 
    structure are considered to be ``separated'' from the structure. This 
    definition is designed to require that the management controls in 
    today's proposal (particularly access limitations where applicable) 
    take effect as soon as LBP debris is generated.
        Under this proposal, if a homeowner hires a individual or firm to 
    perform any of the above activities and LBP debris is created, the 
    individual or firm is considered to be the generator. In such cases, 
    the individual or firm who generated the debris would be responsible 
    for compliance with the requirements in today's proposal rather than 
    the homeowner.
        Any generator of LBP debris from the activities covered in this 
    proposal may choose to separate components containing LBP from the rest 
    of the waste stream. LBP debris separated from the rest of the waste 
    stream would be subject to today's proposed standards. However, the 
    remaining wastestream which does not contain LBP would not be subject 
    to today's proposed standards. Although the Agency believes that 
    complying with the requirements in today's proposal would generally be 
    easier than separating LBP debris from the waste stream, the proposal 
    gives the generator of LBP debris the flexibility to determine the best 
    course of action for each individual activity.
        During the development of this proposal, the issue of paint chips 
    or dust generated incidentally during the transportation of LBP debris 
    for disposal or reuse was raised. EPA believes that chips or dust 
    generated during transportation for disposal or reuse should be subject 
    to the provisions of this proposal and disposed of as LBP debris. For 
    example, if LBP debris is transported to a C&D landfill in a covered 
    dumptruck, the whole load (including paint chips that fall off the LBP 
    debris during transport) should be disposed of together. Similarly, 
    chips and dust loosened from debris during storage in a dumpster or 
    during transport is covered by today's proposal. Subjecting such 
    incidentally-generated chips or dust to RCRA Subtitle C requirements 
    would create an impractical waste management scenario requiring 
    separation and TCLP testing of the waste after transportation to the 
    LBP debris disposal site. Given the small volumes of such incidental 
    chips and dust expected to be generated, EPA does not believe that 
    there is any justification for regulation of such waste under RCRA.
        The Agency considers chips and dust that fall off of LBP debris 
    during storage and transport for disposal or reuse to continue to be 
    LBP debris. Such waste would therefore be subject to today's proposal. 
    The Agency is seeking comments or relevant data on this subject.
    
    F. What Structure Types Are Covered?
    
        Structures covered under today's proposal include target housing, 
    public buildings, and commercial buildings. Covering target housing and 
    other child-occupied facilities, such as day care centers in today's 
    proposal is expected to reduce the risk of lead exposure to children, 
    who are likely to spend a great deal of time in residences, schools, 
    and day care centers. The term ``child-occupied facility'' was defined 
    by EPA in the LBP certification and training rule (40 CFR 745.223). For 
    the purposes of today's proposal, child-occupied facilities are 
    considered to be a subset of public buildings and are covered by the 
    definition of that term in today's proposal at Sec. 745.303. Therefore, 
    a separate definition for child-occupied facilities is not included in 
    this proposal.
        As noted in Unit VI.C. of this preamble, coverage of LBP debris 
    from activities in structures which are not considered to be target 
    housing or child-occupied facilities (i.e., many commercial buildings 
    and public buildings) is not expected to result in as great a direct 
    reduction of LBP risks to children. The Agency, however, wishes to 
    provide one common sense regulatory scheme for the management and 
    disposal of LBP debris with similar characteristics regardless of the 
    structure from which the debris originates. Having different management 
    and disposal requirements for identical wastes would likely create 
    enforcement problems as well as confusion for generators, transporters, 
    and landfill facility operators.
        LBP debris from only target housing, public buildings, and 
    commercial buildings is included in today's proposal. However, the 
    Agency believes the rulemaking should also cover housing excluded from 
    the definition of target housing such as housing for the elderly, or 
    persons with disabilities and ``0 bedroom'' dwellings such as 
    dormitories and efficiencies, as well as post-1978 housing that may 
    have LBP hazards. EPA thinks that LBP debris from these dwellings is 
    identical to LBP debris for target housing, public buildings and 
    commercial buildings. Additionally, individuals and firms receiving LBP 
    debris may not be able to distinguish LBP debris from target housing 
    versus LBP debris from non-target housing. In order to provide one 
    common sense regulatory scheme and encourage the reduction of LBP 
    hazards from all housing, the Agency would like to extend today's 
    proposed standards to all housing. The Agency encourages comment on 
    whether LBP debris from non-target housing should be subject to the 
    same requirements as LBP debris in target housing.
        The fact that structures other than target housing and child-
    occupied facilities often produce similar or identical LBP debris made 
    extension of today's proposed standards to all such structures a 
    logical decision. As noted in Unit VI. of this preamble, the analyses 
    conducted for today's proposal show no significant risk associated with 
    disposal of LBP debris (from any activity or structure) in C&D 
    landfills, and, therefore, no need for the stringent and costly RCRA 
    Subtitle C testing, management and disposal requirements. These factors 
    have resulted in the inclusion of LBP debris from public buildings and 
    commercial buildings under today's proposal. Public comment on the 
    decision to cover LBP debris from public buildings and commercial 
    buildings in today's proposal is encouraged.
        EPA has not included debris generated during activities in steel 
    structures and superstructures in this proposal. The wastes from steel 
    structures and superstructures are fundamentally different than those 
    from occupied structures. The Agency also believes that most large 
    volume wastes from steel structures will be composed of and recycled as 
    scrap metal and will therefore qualify for the scrap metal exemption 
    from RCRA Subtitle C
    
    [[Page 70209]]
    
    requirements (see the RCRA proposed rule published elsewhere in today's 
    Federal Register for a discussion of the scrap metal exemption). Even 
    if steel structures and superstructures were covered by today's 
    proposal, the concentrated LBP wastes resulting from deleading of such 
    structures (paint chips, treatment residues, blast media, filters, 
    etc.) would remain subject to RCRA requirements, including possible 
    regulation as hazardous wastes. (See section B.1. of today's preamble). 
    In addition, the risk analyses conducted for this proposal did not 
    study the volume or other characteristics of debris from steel 
    structures and superstructures (e.g., leachability of lead compounds 
    present in the rust-inhibiting paints used on steel structures).
        EPA requests comments on whether its assumptions regarding wastes 
    generated at steel structures and superstructures are correct and on 
    whether it is appropriate to exclude LBP debris from such structures 
    from this proposal. To include debris from steel structures and 
    superstructures in the final rule, EPA would need additional 
    information regarding the character of wastes from such structures. The 
    Agency encourages submission of relevant data on this subject.
    
    G. What Are the Proposed Disposal and Reclamation Options for LBP 
    Debris?
    
        Section 745.309 of today's proposed rule requires that LBP debris 
    be disposed in one of the following: (1) A construction and demolition 
    landfill as defined at Sec. 745.303; (2) a landfill subject to the 
    requirements in 40 CFR part 257, subpart B, applicable to non-
    municipal, non-industrial, non-hazardous waste disposal units receiving 
    conditionally exempt small quantity generated waste (as defined in 40 
    CFR 261.5); (3) a hazardous waste disposal facility permitted under 40 
    CFR part 270; (4) a hazardous waste disposal facility authorized to 
    manage hazardous waste by a State that has a hazardous management 
    program approved under 40 CFR part 271; (5) a hazardous waste 
    treatment, storage and disposal facility that has qualified for interim 
    status to manage hazardous waste under RCRA section 3005(e); or (6) 
    RCRA hazardous waste incinerators subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 
    part 60, subparts Cb, Eb, or part 63, subpart X.
        These disposal options include all of the categories of solid waste 
    landfills which were identified by the Agency as being safe for the 
    disposal of LBP debris (see Unit VI. of this preamble for a discussion 
    of the analytical basis for these findings), as well as certain 
    incinerators. Under the proposal, it would still be permissible to 
    dispose of LBP debris in hazardous waste landfills regulated under 
    Subtitle C of RCRA or equivalent State programs if the generator of the 
    LBP debris wishes to do so, or if it is required under State law. Note 
    that the proposal does not preclude the reclamation of lead from LBP 
    debris in secondary lead smelters subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart X 
    requirements or the reclamation of energy, such as burning in waste-to-
    energy facilities operated subject to specified Clean Air Act 
    requirements (discussed in Unit VII.G.2. of this preamble).
        During the development of today's proposal, some State solid waste 
    officials have raised the issue of separate cells within larger 
    landfill facilities. The officials wanted to know if separate 
    construction and demolition cells of larger non-C&D facilities would be 
    acceptable options for the disposal of LBP debris under the proposed 
    rule. The issue of separate cells of larger landfills is not 
    specifically addressed in the regulatory text. Section 745.309(a)(1) 
    identifies facilities which may accept LBP debris for disposal. If both 
    the separate cell or unit of the larger facility satisfy any of the 
    criteria for an acceptable landfill specified in Sec. 745.309(a)(1), 
    then LBP debris may be disposed in either the separate cell or that 
    facility. For example, a separate cell for construction and demolition 
    debris meeting the criteria specified in Sec. 745.309(a)(1)(iii) within 
    a hazardous waste disposal facility permitted under 40 CFR part 270 
    would likely be an allowable disposal site for LBP debris. On the other 
    hand, a separate C&D cell within the physical or permitted area of a 
    landfill not included in the proposal as a permissible disposal site 
    for LBP debris (such as an MSWLF permitted under 40 CFR part 258) would 
    not be an allowable disposal option unless the separate cell was 
    permitted separately as a construction and demolition landfill.
    
    H. What Controls on the Management of LBP Debris are Included in the 
    Proposal?
    
        In addition to the disposal and reclamation standards included in 
    today's proposal, EPA is proposing controls on the management of LBP 
    debris. EPA believes that LBP debris should be subject to common sense 
    management standards in order to minimize risks. The management 
    standards outlined below are designed to be as simple as possible while 
    taking into account safety, effectiveness and reliability. EPA believes 
    improper reuse, storage or transportation of LBP debris constitute LBP 
    hazards and has included controls on those activities in today's 
    proposal.
        To assess the need for management controls, the Agency took a 
    number of steps. First, the Agency identified management alternatives 
    or activities that are currently practiced or may be feasible. Second, 
    the Agency determined whether any of these management practices might 
    pose health risks, particularly from inhalation and direct ingestion of 
    LBP. Third, the Agency ascertained whether practices which might pose 
    health risks are already subject to regulation by EPA or other Federal 
    agencies. Fourth, the Agency assessed whether management practices not 
    subject to current regulation require controls to curb potential health 
    hazards.
        The Agency identified the following current or plausible practices 
    as potential public health risks: (1) Application of LBP debris as 
    mulch or wood chips or use of LBP debris as ground cover or for any 
    landscaping purpose; (2) compacting or burying LBP debris for use as 
    fill material, roadbed material, or for site leveling purposes; (3) 
    reuse of LBP debris which has deteriorated paint; (4) reclamation 
    through burning of LBP debris (whether for the purpose of reclamation 
    of lead or reclamation of energy value) in facilities without controls 
    on lead emissions; (5) transporting LBP debris in uncovered vehicles; 
    and (6) storage of LBP debris without access limitations.
        The application of LBP debris as mulch, ground cover, or topsoil or 
    for site leveling, fill or roadbed material may cause health risks 
    through ingestion of LBP, dust, or contaminated soil. Such an 
    application is considered improper disposal under today's proposal. The 
    shredding, compacting, burying, or chopping of LBP debris may also make 
    it difficult to identify the presence of LBP, leading to unwitting 
    handling of a potentially hazardous material. Therefore, today's 
    proposal permits these types of applications only if LBP is removed 
    from LBP debris prior to such applications . In cases where LBP is 
    removed, all LBP must be removed (i.e., the level of lead on the 
    substrate must be below 1 mg/cm2) prior to applying it to 
    the ground. See Sec. 745.301(d)) of the regulatory text.
        EPA is aware of several States, including Connecticut, New 
    Hampshire, and New Jersey, that have similar regulatory prohibitions. 
    Note that any paint chips, dust, or other stripping waste from LBP 
    debris that may be generated during removal of LBP are
    
    [[Page 70210]]
    
    subject to RCRA requirements; chips or flakes that the generator does 
    not contain may be considered illegal hazardous waste disposal under 
    RCRA Subtitle C.
        EPA is unaware of data on the prevalence and methods associated 
    with application of LBP debris as landscape material, roadbed material 
    or fill material. Such applications would constitute improper disposal 
    under today's proposal, unless LBP is first removed. The Agency 
    requests data and further information on these practices and encourages 
    public comment on how these activities should be regulated in the final 
    rule.
        The remainder of this Unit addresses the management standards 
    included in this proposal to address concerns about the practices noted 
    above.
        1. Reuse of LBP debris: Sec. 745.311(a). The Agency believes that 
    current prevalent practice for managing LBP debris is landfill 
    disposal. However, some LBP debris is being reused and transferred for 
    reuse as architectural components, decorative pieces or in another 
    manner. For the purposes of today's proposal, reuse means ``to use 
    again for any purpose other than reclamation or disposal.'' This 
    definition is intended to capture all potentially hazardous reuses of 
    LBP debris and subject them to the controls in today's proposal.
        Reuse of architectural component debris may be a practice in 
    historic building preservation or on occasions when homeowners are 
    replacing hard-to-find doors, windows, or other components. Historic 
    preservation projects have the goal of keeping properties intact, so 
    LBP removal or covering of LBP with protective coating (encapsulation) 
    may be a desirable abatement approach. Even so, there may be benefits 
    to replacement in these properties, such as increased energy efficiency 
    from replaced windows (Ref. 28). The Agency is aware of reuses of LBP 
    debris ranging from the transfer of components for reuse within or 
    between structures, and the application of unique items as decorative 
    pieces or artifacts.
        Reuse of LBP debris is not currently subject to Federal regulation. 
    Today's proposal would permit reuse or the transfer for reuse of LBP 
    debris as a building or structural component or artifact (defined in 
    today's proposal at Sec. 745.303) only if the article to be reused does 
    not constitute a ``LBP hazard'' as defined in Sec. 745.305 of today's 
    proposed regulation. Section 745.305 states that reuse of components 
    with deteriorated LBP is a LBP hazard. Today's proposal defines 
    ``deteriorated paint'' as paint that is cracking, flaking, chipping, 
    peeling, or otherwise separating from the substate of a building 
    component. Today's proposal would prohibit the reuse or transfer for 
    reuse by individuals subject to the rule of components which are 
    identified as LBP hazards at Sec. 745.305 (i.e., components with 
    deteriorated paint) as described above.
        The Agency feels that reuse of components with any deteriorated 
    paint would pose a LBP hazard, and should be prohibited unless LBP is 
    first removed.
        It is important to note that waste resulting from removal of LBP 
    prior to reuse (e.g., paint chips, paint dust, treatment sludges, 
    solvents and residues) is not covered by today's proposal and would 
    remain subject to RCRA requirements. For example, a generator of such 
    waste would have to make a hazardous waste determination, and if the 
    waste was determined to be hazardous, it would be subject to RCRA 
    Subtitle C requirements.
        EPA is aware that the limitations on reuse of LBP debris included 
    in today's proposal would not preclude all reuses of LBP debris. For 
    example, reuse of LBP debris with no deteriorated paint would be 
    permissible under the proposal. EPA considers the standards in today's 
    proposal to be the minimum acceptable limitations on the reuse of LBP 
    debris. Other approaches to the regulation of reuse of LBP debris were 
    considered during the development of this proposal and have not been 
    ruled out by EPA as possible components of a final regulation. The 
    Agency seeks public comment on the prevalence and methods of reuse, the 
    approach contained in this proposal, and other possible approaches to 
    the issue as well as any unintended effects of this proposed rule on 
    the reuse of architectural components.
        Some stakeholders have expressed concern that reuse of LBP debris 
    which has no deteriorated paint may pose a future LBP hazard. As noted 
    above, such reuse would be allowed under the proposal, but the Agency 
    is requesting comment on these provisions. Allowing such reuse would be 
    in keeping with EPA's desire to encourage recycling of materials while 
    continuing to protect human health. Perhaps the most relevant question 
    for public comment on the subject is: Do the reuse standards proposed 
    today adequately protect human health?
        One possible alternative approach would be to require that warning 
    labels be placed on all components which contain LBP and are destined 
    for reuse. Another possible approach might be to prohibit reuse of all 
    LBP debris regardless of the condition of the paint, unless all LBP is 
    removed. However, EPA does not believe that components with intact LBP 
    necessarily represent LBP hazards, so such an approach may prohibit 
    reuse of LBP debris which would not pose a hazard. EPA specifically 
    seeks comment, however, on whether the reuse of LBP debris by a 
    homeowner who is not advised of the presence of LBP should be 
    considered a hazard, not because of the present condition of the paint 
    but due to the possibility that an uninformed homeowner may sand or 
    strip the LBP without taking proper precautions.
        Many historic preservation projects reuse antique or historically 
    significant architectural components. Since many of these components 
    were created before 1978, they can contain a variable amount of LBP. 
    The Agency is proposing that all LBP should be removed from 
    architectural components which have deteriorated paint before the 
    components are reused in order to reduce the spread of potential LBP 
    hazards. Removal of LBP is especially important on friction or impact 
    surfaces where paint is more likely to wear off, creating lead 
    contaminated dust and exposing the layers of lead paint. The Agency 
    defines ``deteriorated paint'' as paint that is cracking, flaking, 
    chipping, peeling, or otherwise separating from the substrate of a 
    building component.
        However, the Agency recognizes that in order to preserve as much of 
    the original historic fabric and the historic character of the antiques 
    or historical architectural components as possible, removal of all LBP 
    may not be an option. Sometimes the architectural component is too 
    fragile to undergo LBP removal or the process of removing the LBP may 
    damage the design or ornate woodwork which makes the piece an antique 
    or historically significant. The Agency requests information on 
    whether, in these cases, encapsulation or other techniques not allowed 
    under the proposed rule may be less invasive and a better restoration 
    practice when preserving antique and historic architectural components. 
    The Agency would also like information on relevant historic 
    preservation practices used when restoring and fixing architectural 
    components of antique or historic value with LBP.
        Under the proposal, generators or transporters of LBP debris, or 
    owners or operators of disposal facilities which accept LBP debris may 
    not transfer LBP debris to entities (such as antique dealers or 
    salvagers) which intend to reuse the debris or offer it for reuse if 
    the LBP debris has deteriorated paint. For example, the proposal is 
    designed to
    
    [[Page 70211]]
    
    prevent transfers of LBP debris with deteriorated paint from a 
    generator to a business which then offers the debris for sale. Even 
    though the business selling the LBP debris is not technically using it, 
    the term ``transferring for reuse'' is defined in today's proposal to 
    prevent generators, transporters, or others from transferring LBP 
    debris with deteriorated paint which will ultimately be reused. 
    Generators and transporters of LBP debris, owners or operators of 
    disposal or reclamation facilities accepting LBP debris, or owners or 
    operators of any enterprise which transfer LBP debris with deteriorated 
    paint for reuse without first removing the LBP would not be in 
    compliance with today's proposal. However, LBP debris may be 
    transferred specifically for the purpose of LBP removal. For example, 
    if a generator of a door with deteriorated LBP gave or sold the door to 
    an individual who then reused it, the generator would be in violation 
    of the transfer-for-reuse restrictions in today's proposal. Generators 
    wishing to avoid this potential liability could remove the LBP prior to 
    transfer of a component, could transport the LBP debris to a 
    reclamation facility for removal of LBP or could decide not to transfer 
    the component for reuse. If the generator transferred the door to a 
    reclamation facility for removal of LBP before reusing or selling the 
    door, the generator would be in compliance with today's rule. Once the 
    LBP is completely removed from an architectural component (as described 
    in Sec. 745.301(d)) it is no longer considered LBP debris and is no 
    longer subject to today's proposed regulations.
        EPA is seeking public comment on the provision in today's proposal 
    which would prohibit a generator or transporter from transferring LBP 
    debris with deteriorated paint to antique dealers or other businesses 
    or entities for reuse or to offer for reuse. EPA is concerned that the 
    requirement may prevent transfers of debris to enterprises specializing 
    in paint removal and restoration of building components with a historic 
    value. The Agency would like to know what effect this provision might 
    have on antique and salvaging businesses and what alternatives might be 
    available which would also prevent the transfer of LBP hazards from one 
    structure to another.
        2. Reclamation: Sec. 745.309(b). Companies that reclaim lead waste 
    (either for recovery of lead, or for energy combustion value) have 
    voiced concerns to EPA that the provisions in today's proposed rule 
    would discourage the reclamation of LBP debris by lowering landfill 
    disposal costs. Today's proposed standards would not preclude the 
    reclamation of LBP debris for lead and/or energy recovery in facilities 
    that meet Clean Air Act requirements. EPA wishes to stress that 
    reclamation can be a viable alternative to landfill disposal and 
    encourages this activity in situations where it is safe and practical. 
    However, estimates have shown that currently, the costs (to a 
    generator) of sending LBP debris to a reclamation facility can be 
    comparable to the cost of disposal in RCRA Subtitle C facilities. Such 
    high costs may lead generators to seek alternatives to reclamation of 
    LBP debris. EPA encourages generators of LBP debris to identify 
    reclamation facilities meeting the requirements described in this unit 
    to determine the feasibility of reclamation as an alternative to 
    disposal.
        EPA is concerned about risk of lead exposure from the processing of 
    LBP debris in smelters, combustors, and incinerators without proper 
    controls on emissions. Burning of wooden LBP debris may allow energy 
    recovery facilities or power plants to rely less on fossil fuels and 
    virgin wood. Paint, as noted in a report prepared for EPA's Office of 
    Air Quality and Planning and Standards, makes up a small percentage of 
    the weight of painted wood, and metals (including lead) comprise only a 
    fraction of this percentage (Ref. 29). However, burning or incineration 
    of LBP debris may result in lead releases. Therefore, prior to 
    accepting LBP debris for any of these activities, a facility should 
    ensure that it will not be in violation of Clean Air Act permit 
    conditions.
        EPA has promulgated a national emission standard for hazardous air 
    pollutants (NESHAP) that is based on the use of Maximum Achievable 
    Control Technology (MACT) for meeting emission standards for lead 
    compounds released from existing and new secondary lead smelters (40 
    CFR part 63, subpart X). EPA also has promulgated new source 
    performance standards (NSPS) for new municipal waste combustor (MWC) 
    units, and emission guidelines for existing MWC units, which establish 
    emission limits for nine pollutants, including lead. (See 40 CFR part 
    60, subparts Eb and Cb, respectively; 60 FR 65389, December 19, 1995). 
    New MWC units are those that either commenced construction after 
    September 20, 1994, or commenced reconstruction after June 19, 1996; 
    existing MWC units are those for which construction commenced on or 
    before September 20, 1994. As a result of a recent Court of Appeals 
    decision, 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb and Eb apply only to MWC units 
    with individual capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of 
    municipal solid waste (large MWC's). See Davis County Solid Waste 
    Management and Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d 1395 (D.C. Cir. 
    1996), amended 108 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (the Davis decision).
        EPA believes that the NESHAP for new and secondary lead smelters, 
    the NSPS emission standard for lead for large MWCs, and the lead 
    emission guidelines for large MWCs are sufficient to ensure safe 
    management of LBP debris in these facilities. Thus, EPA is proposing to 
    prohibit burning of debris in any facility that does not meet the 
    applicable Clean Air Act standards/guidelines for lead emissions set 
    forth in 40 CFR parts 60, subparts Cb and Eb (as amended by the Davis 
    decision) and part 63, subpart X. LBP debris would be allowed to be 
    incinerated in industrial boilers and furnaces for energy recovery 
    provided that boilers and industrial furnaces are subject to the RCRA 
    40 CFR part 266, subpart H requirements.
        Today's definition of reclamation includes the practice of removing 
    existing LBP from debris in order to reuse or recycle such debris. The 
    Agency encourages the transport of LBP debris to reclamation facilities 
    for removal of LBP before reuse of any components. Reclamation 
    practices employed to remove existing LBP from a component include 
    stripping, blasting, sanding, etc. Once debris has been entirely 
    stripped of LBP as described in Sec. 745.301(d), it would no longer be 
    considered LBP debris, and therefore, would no longer be subject to the 
    requirements in today's proposal. Wastes, such as sludges and 
    concentrated LBP generated by the removal of LBP, continue to be 
    subject to RCRA disposal requirements. Firms and individuals receiving 
    LBP debris for reclamation would be subject to the storage and access 
    limitations in Secs. 745.311 and 745.313 of today's proposed rule.
        3. Transportation of LBP debris: Sec. 745.308. Shipping or 
    transport of LBP debris in uncovered vehicles is a possible source of 
    releases in the form of paint chips or dust. The U.S. Department of 
    Transportation does not specifically regulate the transport of non-
    hazardous LBP debris. Many individual States or local authorities, 
    however, have requirements for covering vehicles which carry debris or 
    rubble of any kind.
        Today's proposed rule would prohibit shipment of LBP debris off-
    site in vehicles without covers that prevent identifiable releases of 
    material. Proper management requires the covering of vehicles or 
    containers used for
    
    [[Page 70212]]
    
    transportation of LBP debris to minimize possible releases of 
    particulate matter. Some practical approaches might include but are not 
    limited to: transportation of LBP debris in a vehicle covered with 
    secured tarp or plastic, transport in covered containers/drums, 
    transport in covered dumpsters, or transport in covered mobile 
    trailers.
        Although LBP debris could under today's proposal be moved within a 
    work site without using a covered vehicle, EPA encourages those 
    managing LBP debris to keep LBP debris covered at all times including 
    when moving LBP debris within a site in order to prevent the release of 
    LBP chips, dust or debris.
        The HUD ``Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of LBP Hazards 
    in Housing'' (hereafter referred to as the HUD Guidelines ) recommend 
    wrapping LBP debris in plastic upon generation, and through storage and 
    shipment (Chapter 14) (Ref. 30). Although EPA does not feel that 
    plastic wrap alone represents an adequate access limitation (see Unit 
    VII.G.4. below) during storage, some stakeholders have suggested that 
    plastic wrap used in accordance with the HUD Guidelines may present a 
    satisfactory alternative to covering vehicles for transportation. 
    Although wrapping LBP debris in plastic would not be an allowable 
    transportation method under this proposal (unless the transport vehicle 
    is also covered), the Agency is seeking comment on whether such 
    wrapping would be sufficient to prevent releases of particulate matter 
    during transport as well as on the cost of using plastic wrap. EPA 
    particularly seeks comment from transporters on their experience in 
    delivering plastic-wrapped debris to disposal facilities, and whether 
    or not the plastic wrap is punctured during loading or transport.
        4. Access and storage time limitations: Sec. 745.311(b)--i. Access 
    limitations. As explained in Unit V.F. of this preamble, the Agency 
    considers improper management and disposal of LBP debris to be a LBP 
    hazard. As discussed in detail earlier in Unit V.F. of this preamble, 
    improper storage pending disposal of LBP debris can cause a LBP hazard 
    by allowing the storage or deterioration of LBP in locations, such as 
    uncontrolled waste piles, where it may be accessible to children or 
    contaminate the soil. Therefore, EPA is proposing common sense access 
    limitations for LBP debris, with the exception of LBP debris generated 
    from demolitions, which is stored for more than 3 days (72 hours). The 
    access limitations in today's proposal are designed to ensure safe 
    management of LBP debris while minimizing dispersal of and access to 
    LBP debris by anyone other than persons performing work, or managing or 
    otherwise needing access to the debris.
        Under today's proposal, acceptable access limitations (described at 
    Sec. 745.311(b) of the regulatory text) include:
         Enclosing LBP debris in closed or covered receptacles 
    (e.g., containers, drums, mobile trailers, covered dumpsters or covered 
    transport vehicle.).
         Keeping LBP debris in a dumpster or container which is at 
    least 6 feet tall.
         Keeping LBP debris in fenced areas that are locked when 
    work activities are not being performed on the site.
         Keeping LBP debris in an unoccupied structure which is 
    locked when work activities are not being performed on the site.
         Keeping LBP debris on an unoccupied level of a multi-story 
    structure and keeping the level locked when work activities are not 
    being performed on the site.
        Access and storage limitations do not apply to debris which is 
    reused in compliance with this rule. See Unit VII.G.1. entitled Reuse 
    of LBP Debris for a detailed discussion of reuse.
        Access limitations apply to LBP Architectural Component Debris 
    (LBPACD) which is transferred for reuse but has not yet been reused. 
    LBPACD must be stored in a fenced or enclosed area such as within a 
    store or salvage yard and locked when not monitored. Cases where LBPACD 
    have been transferred for reuse but have not yet been used include 
    mantles, doors, windows, banisters, cabinets or any other type of 
    LBPACD offered for sale in an antique store or a salvage yard. Once the 
    LBPACD has been reused it is no longer subject to these access 
    limitations.
        While common sense dictates some degree of control on the storage 
    of LBP debris, the Agency has attempted to identify logical measures 
    which would impose the least burden while still taking into account 
    safety, effectiveness, and reliability. For example, item b. above 
    allows use of the standard type of large dumpster which is generally 
    used at renovation or abatement projects which last more than a few 
    days. The Agency encourages comments on current ``real world'' 
    practices which may represent adequate access limitations, but are not 
    included in this proposal. EPA does not want to preclude from a final 
    rule any access limitations which may be appropriate but have been 
    inadvertently omitted from those being proposed today.
        The Agency is exempting demolitions from access limitation 
    requirements in this proposed rule. Many demolition projects require a 
    permit issued by local governments which require some type of access 
    limitations. In addition, EPA believes that demolitions, due to 
    liability from other type of hazards such as falling debris, are 
    required to prevent access to these hazards. In places where access 
    limitations are not required by the permiter, EPA believes that the 
    permiter would have sufficient justification, such as demolitions in 
    remote areas, not to require these access limitations. Therefore, EPA 
    is not requiring any further access limitations for demolitions. EPA 
    encourages comments on the adequacy of the proposed access 
    restrictions, the types of access requirements needed for obtaining a 
    demolition permit, and whether demolition permits generally require 
    access limitations.
        Access limitations for LBP debris which are more stringent than the 
    disposal requirements at C&D landfills are necessary for safety, 
    effectiveness, and reliability. The Agency believes that most LBP 
    debris is generated in residential areas where children and adults may 
    have access to an uncontrolled LBP debris wastepile as opposed to C&D 
    landfills which EPA believes are located is less populated areas. The 
    Agency requests more information on controlling public access to and 
    the location of C&D landfills.
        LBP debris which is stored for less than 3 days is not required to 
    have access limitations under today's proposal. This de minimis cut-off 
    level is intended to allow small renovation and abatement projects to 
    accumulate LBP debris prior to disposal without incurring the expense 
    of implementing additional access limitations. While investigating the 
    issue of access limitations, the Agency determined that as many as 51% 
    of renovation and remodeling projects last less than 3 days (Ref 31). 
    The Agency believes that the access limitations which are prescribed in 
    today's proposal represent common practice in these smaller projects, 
    and would not therefore impose significant additional costs.
        The Agency is aware that alternative approaches to setting a de 
    minimis level for requiring access limitations exist. Some alternative 
    approaches might be based on: (1) The volume of waste produced; (2) 
    square footage of paint surface disturbed; or (3) time limits other 
    than 3 days. The Agency chose 3 days as the de minimis level for access 
    limitations because it appeared to
    
    [[Page 70213]]
    
    represent a natural dividing line between smaller projects and projects 
    which last significantly longer. EPA factored in the resources needed 
    to implement access limitations for these smaller jobs and concluded 
    that the costs associated with access limitations for short timeframes 
    less than 72 hours outweighed the potential benefits. Risk-benefit 
    analysis is the principle analytical tool available to the Agency to 
    measure the effectiveness of using resources to reduce human health 
    risks. EPA feels that the 72-hour threshold for access limitations 
    represents a clear and logical standard for the regulated community to 
    comply with and will be safe and effective. EPA solicits comment on 
    this approach and suggested alternative approaches to establishing a de 
    minimus exclusion for access limitations.
        The Agency would like interested parties to comment on or submit 
    data related to the appropriateness of the proposed access limitations. 
    Specific design requirements for fencing or containers are not, with a 
    few exceptions, detailed in today's proposal. The Agency believes that 
    the general descriptions provided in the proposal are sufficient and 
    would result in adequate access limitations; however comments or 
    relevant data on alternative approaches including additional design 
    criteria are encouraged.
        ii. Storage time limitations. Today's proposal establishes a 180-
    day time limit on the storage of LBP debris. EPA believes that the 
    access limitations in this proposal would minimize risk; however, 
    access limitations can and do fail. The cumulative probability of 
    access limitation failure increases the longer LBP debris is in 
    storage. The management and disposal options for LBP debris presented 
    in this proposal are numerous and inexpensive. Therefore the Agency 
    believes that lengthy storage of LBP debris will be unnecessary. The 
    180-day time limitation for storage of LBP debris contained in today's 
    proposal is the same as the minimum storage time limit for generators 
    of between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month (51 FR 
    10148; March 24, 1986).
        The storage time limit begins on the date of generation of the LBP 
    debris. Transfer of LBP debris to a different storage site is permitted 
    under the proposal, but the storage time limit remains 180 days from 
    the date of generation regardless of the number of storage sites for 
    any given LBP debris.
        Situations may occur for which generation of LBP debris at one site 
    occurs over an extended time period and the debris is commingled (e.g., 
    debris is disposed of in a dumpster at different times over a 90-day 
    period). In such cases, the 180-day storage time limit would begin on 
    the date that LBP debris was first generated, and that limitation would 
    apply to all of the commingled LBP debris. EPA believes that 180 days 
    provides an adequate amount of time to arrange for the transport and 
    disposal of LBP debris but encourages public comment on the length of 
    this proposed storage limitation.
        5. Size reduction/processing of LBP debris. It is possible that a 
    generator may need to chop, trim, or otherwise reduce in size LBP 
    debris to fit it in storage containers, drums or transport vehicles. 
    EPA believes there is the possibility of a release of dust, LBP chips, 
    or particulate matter during this activity. Generators working where 
    LBP is present should use processing or size reduction techniques that 
    will control releases, such as use of a plastic contained area with a 
    plastic floor, top and sides, or a mobile enclosure. As noted, 
    previously, paint chips and dust generated during such activities are 
    still subject to RCRA requirements under today's proposal and may be 
    considered hazardous waste.
        Today's proposal does not include standards regulating size 
    reduction of LBP debris or other similar activities. The Occupational 
    Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Lead in Construction standards, 
    however do apply to the following:
         Alteration, renovation, or repair of substrates containing 
    lead.
         Removal of materials containing lead.
         Transportation, disposal, storage, or containment of 
    materials containing lead on the site.
         Maintenance activities associated with the construction 
    activities listed above.
        The OSHA standard establishes maximum limits of exposure to lead 
    for all workers covered, including a permissible exposure limit (PEL) 
    and an action level. Under the standard, no employee may be exposed to 
    lead at airborne concentrations greater than 50 g/m averaged over an 8-
    hour period (58 FR 26598; May 4, 1993).
        EPA believes that compliance with the OSHA Lead in Construction 
    standards represents sufficient controls on LBP debris size reduction 
    activities and that additional regulation under today's proposal would 
    be duplicative. The Agency requests comment, however, on whether TSCA 
    standards for such activities are warranted.
    
    I. What Are the Notification and Recordkeeping Requirements? 
    Sec. 745.313
    
        In order to ensure that LBP debris is managed and disposed of 
    properly, the Agency is proposing a requirement that when LBP debris is 
    transferred from one party to another, the recipient should be notified 
    in writing of the presence of LBP debris (Sec. 745.313(a)). The 
    notification document should: (1) Disclose the presence of LBP debris; 
    (2) indicate the date of generation of the LBP debris; (3) be signed 
    and dated by the recipient; (4) be signed and dated by the transferor; 
    (5) contain the generator's name and address; and (6) notify the 
    recipient of the need to comply with LBP debris management and disposal 
    standards. The proposal requires both parties (the transferor and the 
    recipient) to any transfer of LBP debris to retain a record of the 
    notification for 3 years (Sec. 745.313(b)).
        LBPACD transferred for reuse, including components intended for 
    sale, are also subject to notification and recordkeeping requirements 
    at Sec. 745.313. Notification requirements begin upon generation of the 
    debris intended for reuse and terminate at the point at which the 
    LBPACD is reused. For example, a salvage yard which sells LBPACD 
    generated by an abatement, renovation, or demolition must notify, in 
    writing, any purchaser or user of any LBPACD of the presence of LBP 
    debris and keep records of the notification and transfer as required by 
    this proposed rule Sec. 745.313. Once the LBPACD is reused further 
    notification is not required.
        Without notification requirements, a recipient (e.g., transporter 
    or owner/operator of a disposal facility) might unknowingly accept LBP 
    debris and then violate the provisions of today's proposal by 
    improperly managing or disposing of the material. For example, if a 
    generator transferred LBP debris to a transporter for disposal without 
    notifying the transporter of the presence of LBP debris, the 
    transporter might not cover the vehicle or might dispose of the LBP 
    debris in a facility not allowed to receive LBP debris under this 
    proposal.
        The effect of the notification requirement will be that each person 
    who receives LBP debris for any reason would be aware that they are 
    receiving LBP debris and will be referred to the requirements for LBP 
    debris management and disposal in this proposal. Any person who manages 
    LBP debris in compliance with this proposal, including proper 
    notification, will generally be deemed to have fulfilled their 
    responsibilities under the proposal. EPA would view any
    
    [[Page 70214]]
    
    noncompliance with the proposed requirements subsequent to a transfer 
    (which included proper notification) to be the responsibility of the 
    person who is not in compliance with the requirements, not of any 
    person who had prior possession of the LBP debris. However, a party in 
    prior possession may be in noncompliance if the party knew or had 
    reason to know that the person receiving the LBP debris would not 
    handle it properly. In addition, a generator who incorrectly determines 
    that LBP debris is not present, would be liable for any and all 
    subsequent violations of today's proposal.
        EPA believes a recordkeeping requirement is a necessity from the 
    standpoint of enforcement because it establishes a clear chain-of-
    custody. This would allow inspectors to identify and locate the 
    generators and recipient(s) of LBP debris for questioning and to gather 
    further material evidence from them to aid an investigation, if 
    necessary. In addition, the recordkeeping requirement would result in 
    the retention of important evidence that is likely to be used should an 
    enforcement action be necessary. The notification document contains 
    information needed to establish a foundation for enforcement actions.
        The Agency would like comment on whether there are less expensive 
    or more efficient ways that maintain safety, reliability, and 
    effectiveness of notifying and keeping records of LBP debris for 
    transport and disposal than the one outlined in the proposal. An 
    example of an alternative to the suggested paper notification and 
    recordkeeping may be a system of notification and recordkeeping with 
    electronic signature and storage. Any type of alternative notification 
    and recordkeeping system should: (1) Disclose the presence of LBP 
    debris; (2) indicate the date that the LBP debris was generated; (3) be 
    signed and dated by the recipient; (4) be signed and dated by the 
    transferor, (5) contain the generator's name and address, and (6) 
    notify the recipient of the need to comply with LBP debris management 
    and disposal standards.
        A sample notification which meets the requirements of proposed 
    Sec. 745.313 is included at the end of this unit. The sample is 
    intended to serve as an example and does not represent the only format 
    or wording that might meet the requirements of the proposal. The sample 
    is not included in the regulatory text itself and nothing in the 
    proposal would require the use of any specific form or format. Instead, 
    the regulatory text, at Sec. 745.313 contains the specific information 
    which must be included in the notification.
    
    [[Page 70215]]
    
    
    
     
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
                                              SAMPLE
       NOTIFICATION
     
                                    Notification of the
       Presence of LBP Debris
     
      Lead Warning Statement
     
      Lead from paint can pose health hazards if not managed,
       transported and disposed of properly. Lead exposure is
       especially harmful to young children and pregnant women.
       Before transferring LBP (LBP) debris to any party for
       any reason, transferors must notify recipients of the
       presence of LBP debris.
     
      Notification of Presence of LBP Debris
      LBP debris is present in the materials being transferred
       from
     
      ------------------ (Transferor name) to ------------------
        (Recipient name).
     
      When Was this Lead-Based Paint Generated?
      This LBP debris was generated on ----------------------
       (Date).
     
      Who Generated this Lead-Based Paint Debris?
      (Name and Address of Generator)
     
      John Doe
      1000 Main Street
      Hope, Arkansas 12345
     
      Requirements for the Management and Disposal of LBP
       Debris
      LBP debris is subject to EPA regulations found at 40 CFR
       745.301-745.319. See those regulations for further
       details. Requirements and restrictions on the MANAGEMENT
       OF LBP debris include the following:
      (1) LBP debris MUST BE COVERED when it is transported.
      (2) LBP debris stored for more than 72 hours after
       initial generation MUST HAVE ACCESS LIMITATIONS (except
       for demolition debris).
      (3) LBP debris MAY NOT BE STORED for more than 180 days
       after it is generated.
      (4) LBP debris with deteriorated paint MAY NOT BE REUSED
       or TRANSFERRED FOR REUSE.
     
      Requirements and restrictions on the DISPOSAL OR
       RECLAMATION of LBP debris include the following:
      (1) LBP debris MAY NOT be disposed of in any landfill
       which accepts municipal or industrial waste.
      (2) LBP debris MAY ONLY be reclaimed, incinerated or
       recycled at facilities subject to the regulations
       specified at 40 CFR 745.309(b).
     
      ------------------        ------------          ---------
       -----------        --------------------
      Transferor                    Date                Recipie
       nt                      Date
     
      NOTE: Both parties (transferor and recipient) must keep a
       copy of this Notification for at least 3 years from the
       date it is signed.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    [[Page 70216]]
    
    VIII. State and Tribal Programs
    
        This section outlines the State and Indian Tribe (including Alaskan 
    Native Villages where appropriate) program approval process for today's 
    proposed rule.
    
    A. General
    
        Section 404(a) of TSCA Title IV provides that any State which seeks 
    to administer and enforce the standards, regulations, or other 
    requirements established under TSCA section 402 may submit an 
    application to EPA for approval of such a program. TSCA section 404(b) 
    states that EPA may approve such an application only after finding 
    that: (1) The State program is at least as protective of human health 
    and the environment as the Federal program; and (2) that the program 
    provides adequate enforcement. Although TSCA does not specifically 
    address Tribal lead programs; EPA is extending to Tribes the same 
    opportunity as States to apply for authorization (see section G. of 
    this unit for further discussion.)
        EPA's final rule addressing LBP training and certification (61 FR 
    45778), outlined specific procedures for program approval under the 
    authority of TSCA section 402 at 40 CFR 745.320. Today's proposed rule 
    adopts a similar process with some alterations including specific 
    requirements for LBP debris management and disposal program 
    applications. A State or Tribe may apply for LBP debris management and 
    disposal program authorization if it does not have an authorized LBP 
    training and certification program.
        Political subdivisions of States or Tribes (e.g., cities, towns, 
    counties, etc.), are not eligible for authorization.
    
    B. Submission of an Application
    
        Under this proposal, before developing an application for 
    authorization, a State or Indian Tribe would have to distribute 
    publicly a notice of intent to seek such authorization and provide an 
    opportunity for a public hearing. The State or Indian Tribe is free to 
    conduct this hearing and provide an opportunity for comment in any 
    manner it chooses. Upon completion of an application that reflects this 
    public participation, the State or Indian Tribe may submit the 
    application to the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
        As proposed at Sec. 745.344, an application for program 
    authorization should include the following seven elements: (1) A 
    transmittal letter from the Governor or Tribal Chairperson (or 
    equivalent official); (2) a summary of the State or Tribal program; (3) 
    a description and analysis of the program; (4) a statement which 
    identifies resources the State or Tribe intends to devote to the 
    administration of its compliance and enforcement program; (5) a 
    statement agreeing to submit to EPA the Summary on Progress and 
    Performance of LBP debris management and disposal compliance and 
    enforcement activities as described at Sec. 745.355(b)(2); (6) an 
    Attorney General or Tribal equivalent's statement attesting to the 
    adequacy of the State or Indian Tribe's program authority; and (7) 
    copies of all applicable State or Tribal statutes, regulations, 
    standards and other materials that provide the State or Indian Tribe 
    with the authority to administer and enforce a LBP debris management 
    and disposal program.
        Sections B.1., B.2., and B.3. of this unit outline the application 
    elements.
        1. Program description: Sec. 745.346. A program application should 
    contain information, specified in Sec. 745.346, that describes the 
    program. The program description is the portion of the application that 
    the State or Indian Tribe will use to characterize the elements of 
    their program. The Agency would use this information to make an 
    approval or disapproval decision on a State or Indian Tribe's 
    application. The program description contains four distinct sections 
    (five in the case of Tribal applications).
        In the first section (Sec. 745.346(a)), the State or Indian Tribe 
    should list the name of the State or Tribal agency that will administer 
    and enforce the program and the name of a contact at that agency, and 
    if there will be more than one agency administering or enforcing the 
    program, describe the relationship between or among these agencies.
        Second (Sec. 745.346(b)), the State or Indian Tribe should 
    demonstrate that the program has all of the required program elements 
    specified in Sec.  745.350. These elements represent the minimum 
    elements or requirements a State or Tribal program should have to be 
    considered for authorization.
        Third (Sec. 745.346(c)), the application should provide an analysis 
    of the entire State or Tribal program that describes any dissimilarity 
    from the Federal requirements in Secs. 745.301 through 745.319. The 
    analysis should explain why, considering these differences, the State 
    or Tribal program is at least as protective as the provisions outlined 
    at Secs. 745.301 through- 745.319 and provides adequate enforcement. 
    The Agency would like to be as flexible as possible in reviewing 
    applications which contain provisions different from the Federal 
    requirements; however in such cases, the State or Tribe should 
    demonstrate in its program analysis that its program is at least as 
    protective as the Federal program and provides for adequate 
    enforcement. The Agency will use this analysis, along with its own 
    comparison, to evaluate the protectiveness of the State or Tribal 
    program.
        Fourth (Sec. 745.346(d)), the State or Tribal application should 
    demonstrate that the program meets the compliance and enforcement 
    requirements at Sec. 745.352. This section of the application is 
    discussed in more detail in section H. of this unit.
        In addition to the above, the program description for a Tribe 
    should also include the information required by Sec. 745.346(e) 
    (special requirements for Tribal Program Descriptions).
        2. Attorney General's Statement: Sec. 745.347. The State or Indian 
    Tribe should provide an assurance that it has the legal authority 
    necessary to administer and enforce the LBP debris management and 
    disposal program. The State or Tribal Attorney General (or equivalent 
    Tribal official) should sign this statement.
        3. Public availability of application: Sec. 745.344(c)-(d). Section 
    404(b) of TSCA requires EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for a 
    public hearing on a State or Tribal application for authorization. 
    Accordingly, the Agency will publish in the Federal Register a notice 
    announcing the receipt of a State or Tribe's application, a summary of 
    the State or Tribal program (to be provided by the applicant 
    (Sec. 745.344(b)(2)), the location of copies of the application 
    available for public review, and the dates and times that the 
    application will be available for public review. Individuals may at 
    that time submit a request to the Agency for a public hearing on the 
    State or Tribal application. It should be noted that this opportunity 
    for public hearing is separate and distinct from the public comment, 
    discussed in section B. of this unit, that the State or Indian Tribe 
    should seek before preparing an application for program approval.
    
    C. State Program Certification
    
        Pursuant to TSCA section 404(a), at the time of submitting an 
    application for program authorization, a State may also certify to the 
    Administrator that the State program is at least as protective as the 
    Federal program proposed at Secs. 745.301 - 745.319 and that it 
    provides adequate enforcement.
        If this certification is contained in a State application, the 
    program will be deemed authorized until/unless EPA disapproves the 
    program's application or withdraws the program's
    
    [[Page 70217]]
    
    authorization. This certification should be contained in a letter from 
    the Governor or the Attorney General, to EPA, and should reference the 
    program analysis contained in the program description portion of the 
    application as the basis for concluding that the State program is at 
    least as protective as the Federal program and provides for adequate 
    enforcement. If a State application does not contain such 
    certification, the State program will be considered authorized only 
    after EPA approves the State application.
        This program certification provision is not available to Indian 
    Tribes because Indian Tribes should first demonstrate to the Agency 
    that they meet the criteria proposed at Sec. 745.324(b)(4) for 
    treatment in the same manner as a State (TAS). Although Indian Tribes 
    may be able to demonstrate that they have been approved for TAS for 
    another environmental program (satisfying two of the four TAS 
    criteria), the Agency must make a separate determination that an Indian 
    Tribe has adequate jurisdictional authority and administrative and 
    programmatic capability regarding its LBP debris management and 
    disposal program before it can determine that the Tribe should be 
    treated in the same manner as a State. These criteria are discussed in 
    greater detail in section F. of this unit.
        TSCA section 404(b) limits Agency review of program applications to 
    180 days. EPA encourages States and Indian Tribes to submit their 
    authorization applications as soon as possible after the final rule is 
    promulgated. Because the Agency anticipates needing the full 180 days 
    allowed under today's proposal to properly review and act on an 
    application, States and Indian Tribes are strongly encouraged to work 
    with the appropriate EPA Regional office to develop and submit a 
    complete application before promulgation of the final rule.
    
    D. EPA Approval
    
        Within 180 days following receipt of a complete State or Tribal 
    application, EPA will approve or disapprove the application. EPA will 
    authorize a program only if, after notice and opportunity for public 
    hearing, EPA finds that:
        (1) The program is at least as protective of human health and the 
    environment as the Federal program contained at Secs. 745.301 - 
    745.319.
        (2) The program provides adequate enforcement of the appropriate 
    State or Tribal regulations.
        The Agency will notify the State or Indian Tribe in writing of the 
    decision. As described in proposed Sec. 745.354(a)(4), upon 
    authorization of a State or Tribal program, it will be unlawful under 
    TSCA section 15 and section 409, for any person to violate, fail or 
    refuse to comply with any requirements of such a program.
        The Agency believes that TSCA section 404 and the decision criteria 
    above give it reasonably broad latitude in approving or disapproving 
    State and Tribal programs. EPA interprets the TSCA section 404(b) 
    standard ``. . . at least as protective as. . .'' to mean that a 
    program need not be identical to, or administered and enforced in a 
    manner identical to, the Federal program for that program to be 
    authorized. The Agency expects to receive applications for State and 
    Tribal programs that will differ in some respects from the Federal 
    program established in this proposed rulemaking. This is unavoidable 
    (and even desirable) given the differences that undoubtedly exist 
    between LBP debris management and disposal programs at the State and 
    Tribal level. The Agency will make every attempt to accommodate these 
    differences while following the statutory requirement of ensuring that 
    every State or Tribal program is at least as protective as the Federal 
    program and provides for adequate enforcement.
        1. Establishment of the Federal program. If a State or Indian Tribe 
    does not have a program authorized under this proposed rule and in 
    effect by the date that is 2 years from the promulgation date of the 
    final regulation, EPA will, as of such date, establish the Federal 
    program under 40 CFR part 745, subpart P in that State or Indian 
    Country.
        Although the definition of Indian Country is contained in a 
    criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1151 (1994), it ``generally applies as well 
    to questions of civil jurisdiction.'' DeCoteau v. District County Ct., 
    420 U.S. 425, 427 n. 2 (1975). In addition, several cases have 
    interpreted its scope, including the Supreme Court's recent decision, 
    Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, No. 96-1577, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 1449 
    (S.Ct. February 25, 1998) finding that an Alaska Native Village's lands 
    held in fee simple were not Indian country; Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 
    463 (1984).
        2. EPA overfiling authority. The Agency reserves the right to bring 
    an enforcement action against a violator if a State or Indian Tribe 
    fails to impose the proper penalty against a violator. However, before 
    doing so, the Agency will notify the State or Indian Tribe in writing 
    of its failure to impose the appropriate penalty. The State or Indian 
    Tribe will have 30 days from receipt of such notice from the 
    Administrator to adjust the improper penalty amount. In the event that 
    the State or Indian Tribe fails to rectify the situation, the Agency 
    may issue an administrative penalty order against the violator with the 
    appropriate penalty amount. In addition, if a State or Indian Tribe 
    fails to bring an action against a violator, then the Agency has the 
    authority to commence the appropriate action after giving the State 30 
    days notice to bring an action against the violator.
    
    E. Withdrawal of Authorization: Sec. 745.356
    
        As required by section 404 of TSCA, if a State or Indian Tribe is 
    not administering and enforcing its authorized program according to the 
    standards, regulations, and other requirements of TSCA Title IV, 
    including section 404(b)(1) and (b)(2), the Agency will so notify the 
    State or Indian Tribe. If corrective action is not completed within a 
    reasonable time, not to exceed 180 days, EPA will withdraw 
    authorization of such program and establish a Federal LBP debris 
    management and disposal program pursuant to TSCA Title IV in that State 
    or Tribal land. Procedures for withdrawal of authorization can be found 
    at Sec. 745.356 of the regulatory text.
    
    F. Model State and Tribal Program
    
        Section 404(d) of TSCA directs the Agency to promulgate a model 
    program that may be adopted by any State or Tribe that seeks to 
    administer and enforce a LBP debris management and disposal program. 
    For the purposes of this proposal, the Federal requirements at proposed 
    Secs. 745.301 through 745.319 serve as the model State and Tribal 
    program.
    
    G. Tribal LBP Debris Management and Disposal Programs
    
        Today's action proposes a system that would provide Federally-
    recognized Indian Tribes the opportunity to apply for program 
    authorization in a manner similar to States. Providing Indian Tribes 
    with this opportunity is consistent with EPA's Policy for the 
    Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations 
    (hereinafter referred to as EPA's Indian Policy). This policy, formally 
    adopted in 1984 and reaffirmed on March 14, 1994, by the Administrator, 
    ``. . . view[s] Tribal Governments as the appropriate non-Federal 
    parties for making decisions and carrying out program responsibilities 
    affecting Indian reservations, their environments, and the health and 
    welfare of the reservation populace,'' consistent with Agency standards 
    and regulations.
    
    [[Page 70218]]
    
        A major goal of EPA's Indian Policy is to eliminate statutory and 
    regulatory barriers to Tribal administration of Federal environmental 
    programs to the greatest extent possible. Today's proposal represents 
    another step in the Agency's continuing commitment toward achieving 
    this goal. However, EPA recognizes that some eligible Indian Tribes may 
    choose not to apply for program authorization. Regardless of the choice 
    made by a Tribe, the Agency remains committed to providing technical 
    assistance and training when possible to Tribal entities as they work 
    to resolve their LBP management and disposal concerns.
        1. EPA's authority to review and approve Tribal LBP debris 
    management and disposal programs. EPA believes it has adequate 
    authority under TSCA to allow Indian Tribes to seek LBP debris 
    management and disposal program authorization. EPA's interpretation of 
    TSCA is governed by the principles of Chevron, Inc. v. Natural 
    Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Where ``Congress has 
    not directly addressed the precise question at issue'' in a statute, 
    Id. at 843, the Agency charged with implementing that statute may adopt 
    any interpretation which, in the Agency's expert judgment, is 
    reasonable in light of the goals and purposes of the statute as a 
    whole. Id. at 844. Interpreting TSCA to allow Indian Tribes to apply 
    for program authorization satisfies the Chevron test.
        TSCA, including sections 402 and 404, does not explicitly define a 
    role for Indian Tribes. Therefore, Congress did not directly address 
    the precise question at issue. Indian Tribes' status as sovereign 
    governments, see, e.g., Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (10 Pet.) 515 
    (1832); United States v. Wheeler, 485 U.S. 313 (1978), precludes the 
    operation of State law within Tribal jurisdictions except in very 
    limited circumstances. See California v. Cabazon Band of Mission 
    Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987). There is no indication in TSCA or its 
    legislative history that Congress intended to abrogate any sovereign 
    Tribal authority by extending State jurisdiction into Indian Country. 
    The Supreme Court has stated that the ``choice between [possible 
    statutory constructions] must be dictated by a principle deeply rooted 
    in this Court's Indian jurisprudence: statutes are to be construed 
    liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions 
    interpreted to their benefit.''' County of Yakima v. Yakima Indian 
    Nation, 502 U.S. 251, 268 (1992). Further, any statutory limitations on 
    Tribal sovereignty must be stated explicitly. Santa Clara Pueblo v. 
    Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978); Montana v. Blackfeet Indian Tribe, 471 
    U.S. 759 (1985) (Congressional intent must be ``unmistakably clear''). 
    In addition, the Supreme Court has consistently admonished that Federal 
    statutes and regulations relating to Tribes and Tribal activities must 
    be construed generously in order to comport with traditional notions of 
    Indian sovereignty and with the Federal policy of encouraging Tribal 
    independence. Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue, 458 U.S. 
    832, 846 (internal quotations, ellipsis and brackets removed).
        A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 
    found that RCRA did not authorize EPA to review and approve certain 
    Tribal solid waste programs in the same manner as States. Backcountry 
    Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (9th Cir. 1996). In that case, the 
    court found under the first step of the Supreme Court's analysis in 
    Chevron, that RCRA was ``neither silent nor ambiguous'' on the role of 
    Tribes. Id. at 151. The inclusion of Indian Tribes in the definition of 
    ``municipality'' and the absence of Indian Tribes from the definition 
    of ``State'' precluded EPA from interpreting RCRA section 4005(c)(1)(C) 
    to authorize review and approval of Tribal programs. Id.
        Importantly, however, the court noted that ``if Indian Tribes were 
    not defined anywhere in the statute . . . we would move to Chevron's 
    second step.'' Id. Because Indian Tribes are not defined or even 
    mentioned in TSCA, Backcountry Against Dumps supports EPA position that 
    the Agency may, under step two of Chevron, adopt a reasonable 
    interpretation of TSCA.
        The D.C. Circuit held up Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 
    1981), as an example of such a case. Backcountry at 151. The Nance 
    court recognized the reasonableness of EPA's actions in filling 
    regulatory gaps on Indian Country. In Nance, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
    for the Ninth Circuit upheld EPA's regulations which authorized Indian 
    Tribes to redesignate the level of air quality applicable to Indian 
    Country under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 
    of the Clean Air Act similar to the manner in which States could 
    redesignate other lands. The Court found that EPA could reasonably 
    interpret the Clean Air Act to allow for Tribal redesignation, rather 
    than allowing the States to exercise that authority or exempting Indian 
    Country from the redesignation process. Nance, 745 F.2d 713. The Court 
    noted that EPA's rule was reasonable in light of the general existence 
    of Tribal sovereignty over activities in Indian Country. Id. at 714.
        Interpreting TSCA to allow EPA to review and approve Tribal LBP 
    debris management and disposal programs is reasonable. Today's proposed 
    rule is analogous to the rule upheld in Nance. Failure to authorize 
    Tribal LBP debris management and disposal programs would deny Indian 
    Tribes the option available to States to administer their programs in 
    lieu of the Federal program. As with the redesignation program at issue 
    in Nance, this proposal, however, would enable the most direct 
    regulation of LBP debris management and disposal in Indian Country. 
    Today's proposed rule would conform with the Congressional intent that 
    the local sovereigns with program and enforcement authority--the States 
    and Tribes--rather than the Federal government regulate. Approving 
    Tribal regulation by eligible Tribes in lieu of Federal regulation also 
    follows general principles of Federal Indian law and the Agency's 
    Indian Policy. EPA believes that allowing Indian Tribes to apply for 
    program authorization is consistent with the sovereign authority of 
    Indian Tribes. EPA also has allowed Indian Tribes to seek program 
    approval despite the lack of an explicit Congressional language in the 
    past. (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996 and 55 FR 30632, July 26, 1990) 
    Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981) and (CAA PSD Program). 
    Furthermore, EPA has broad expertise in reconciling Federal 
    environmental and Indian policies. Washington Dept. of Ecology v. EPA, 
    752 F.2d 1465, 1469 (1985).
        For a more detailed discussion of EPA's authority to treat Tribes 
    in the same manner as States under TSCA, see 61 FR 45778, 45805-07, 
    August 29, 1996, LBP activities.
        2. Tribal eligibility requirements. Under several environmental 
    statutes, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Safe Drinking 
    Water Act (SDWA), Congress specified certain criteria for EPA to 
    determine whether it may treat an Indian Tribe in the same manner as a 
    State. These criteria generally require that the Indian Tribe:
         Be recognized by the Secretary of the Interior.
         Have an existing government exercising substantial 
    governmental duties and powers.
         Have adequate civil regulatory jurisdiction over the 
    subject matter and entities to be regulated.
         Be reasonably expected to be capable of administering the 
    Federal environmental program for which it is seeking approval.
        EPA proposes to require Indian Tribes seeking program authorization 
    and grants under TSCA section 404 to demonstrate in the program 
    description
    
    [[Page 70219]]
    
    that they meet the four criteria listed above. The Agency has 
    simplified its process for determining Tribal eligibility to administer 
    environmental programs under several other environmental statutes (59 
    FR 64339; December 14, 1994). The proposed process for determining 
    eligibility for TSCA section 404 programs parallels the simplification 
    rule. Generally, the fact that an Indian Tribe has met the recognition 
    or governmental function requirement under another environmental 
    statute allowing for Tribal assumption of environmental programs (e.g., 
    the CWA, SDWA, CAA) will establish that it meets those particular 
    requirements for purposes of TSCA section 404 authorization. To 
    facilitate review of Tribal applications, EPA requests that the Indian 
    Tribe demonstrate that it has been approved for ``TAS'' (under the old 
    TAS process) or been deemed eligible to receive authorization (under 
    the simplified process) for any other program.
        If an Indian Tribe has not received TAS approval or been deemed 
    eligible to receive authorization, the Indian Tribe must demonstrate, 
    pursuant to Sec. 745.324(b)(5)(ii), that it meets the recognition and 
    governmental function criteria described above. A discussion on how to 
    make these showings can be found at 59 FR 64339, December 14, 1994.
        EPA believes, on the other hand, that the Agency must make a 
    separate determination that an Indian Tribe has adequate jurisdictional 
    authority and administrative and programmatic capability before it 
    approves each Tribal LBP debris management and disposal program. To 
    have its LBP debris management and disposal program authorized by EPA 
    under today's proposed rule, an Indian Tribe would need adequate 
    authority over the regulated activities.
        EPA proposes to require under Sec. 745.346(e) that Indian Tribes 
    provide a discussion of their jurisdiction to run a LBP debris 
    management and disposal program. The Tribe should include copies of all 
    documents, such as treaties, statutes, executive orders, constitutions, 
    bylaws, charters, codes, ordinances, and/or resolutions which support 
    the Indian Tribe's assertions of jurisdiction. EPA will review this 
    documentation and comments submitted by appropriate governmental 
    entities during the public comment period, and then will make a 
    determination whether the Tribe has adequately demonstrated its 
    jurisdiction over LBP debris activities in Indian Country. The Indian 
    Country standard provides the guideline of the areas over which a Tribe 
    may demonstrate jurisdiction for purposes of Tribal programs. EPA, 
    however, will not rely solely on the Indian Country standard, but will 
    consider, on a case-by-case basis whether a Tribe has demonstrated its 
    jurisdiction over LBP debris management and disposal in particular 
    areas under principles of Federal Indian law.
        The jurisdiction of Indian Tribes generally extends ``over both 
    their members and their territory.'' United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 
    544, 557 (1975). However, Indian reservations may include lands owned 
    in fee by nonmembers. ``Fee lands'' are privately owned by nonmembers 
    and title to the lands can be transferred without restriction. The 
    Supreme Court, in Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544, 565-66 (1981) noted 
    that Tribes may have authority over nonmember activities on reservation 
    fee lands in certain circumstances, including when the nonmember 
    conduct ``threatens or has some direct effect on the political 
    integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the 
    Indian Tribe.''
        The Supreme Court in several cases since Montana has explored 
    several criteria to assure that the impacts upon Indian Tribes of the 
    activities of non-Indians on fee land, under the Montana test, are more 
    than de minimis. To date, however, the Court has not agreed in a case 
    on point on any one reformulation of the test. In response to this 
    uncertainty, in 1991 EPA decided in the context of a regulation under 
    the CWA that it would apply a more rigorous formulation of the Montana 
    test, establishing an ``operating rule'' that requires Tribes seeking 
    eligibility to set water quality standards governing activities of 
    nonmembers on fee lands to show that the effects are ``serious and 
    substantial'' (56 FR 64878). EPA noted that ``[t]he choice of an Agency 
    operating rule containing this standard is taken solely as a matter of 
    prudence in light of judicial uncertainty and does not reflect an 
    Agency endorsement of this standard per se.'' Since 1991, however, the 
    Supreme Court has reaffirmed Montana's impacts test verbatim without 
    addressing the need for ``serious'' or ``substantial'' impacts. e.g., 
    Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 117 S. Ct. 1404 (1997); South Dakota v. 
    Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). While it appears that the Montana test 
    may not require ``serious and substantial'' impacts, for the time-
    being, as a matter of prudence, EPA will continue to look to see 
    whether such impacts exist when evaluating Tribal authority over LBP 
    debris activities under the Montana test.
        In Strate, 117 S.Ct. at 1414, the Supreme Court made clear that 
    Montana remains the controlling standard for evaluating Tribal 
    authority over nonmember activities on fee lands. The Court emphasized 
    in Strate that the purpose of Montana's impacts test is to ensure that 
    Tribes retain their powers of self-government. EPA believes that 
    protecting the public through environmental protection programs from 
    serious and substantial effects on health and welfare is a core 
    governmental function whose exercise is critical to self-government. 
    (see 56 FR 64879).
        Whether an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction over activities of 
    nonmembers on fee lands, will be determined case-by-case, based on 
    factual findings. The determination as to whether the required effect 
    is present in a particular case depends on the circumstances and will 
    likely vary from Indian Tribe to Indian Tribe. The Agency believes, 
    however, that the activities regulated under the various environmental 
    statutes, including TSCA, generally have the potential for direct 
    impacts on human health and welfare that are serious and substantial. 
    See 56 FR 64878.
        The process that the Agency will use for Indian Tribes to 
    demonstrate their authority over nonmembers on fee lands includes a 
    submission of a statement pursuant to Secs. 745.346 and 745.347 
    explaining the legal basis for the Indian Tribes' regulatory authority. 
    The Indian Tribe must explicitly assert and demonstrate jurisdiction, 
    i.e., show that LBP debris management and disposal activities conducted 
    by nonmembers on fee lands could have impacts on the health and welfare 
    of the Indian Tribe and its members that are serious and substantial. 
    The Tribal submission should make a showing of facts that there are or 
    may be activities regulated under TSCA Title IV by nonmembers on fee 
    lands within the territory for which the Indian Tribe is seeking 
    authorization, and that the Indian Tribe or Tribal members could be 
    subject to exposure to LBP hazards from such activities through, e.g., 
    dust, soil, air, and/or direct contact.
        As noted above, the Supreme Court emphasized in Strate that the 
    purpose of the Montana test is to ensure that Tribes retain their 
    powers of self-government. While EPA believes generally that protecting 
    Tribal health and welfare from serious and substantial environmental 
    effects is essential to Tribal self-government, the Tribal submission 
    should also discuss the extent to which Tribal implementation of the 
    LBP debris management and
    
    [[Page 70220]]
    
    disposal program over nonmembers on fee lands is essential to Tribal 
    self-government. However, EPA will also rely on its generalized 
    findings regarding the relationship of LBP activities and related 
    hazards to Tribal health and welfare.
        Appropriate governmental entities (e.g., an adjacent Indian Tribe 
    or State) will have an opportunity to comment on the Indian Tribe's 
    jurisdictional assertions during the public comment period prior to 
    EPA's action on the Indian Tribe's application.
        The Agency recognizes that jurisdictional disputes between Indian 
    Tribes and States can be complex and difficult and that it may, in some 
    circumstances, be most effective to address such disputes by attempting 
    to work with the parties in a mediative fashion. However, EPA's 
    ultimate responsibility is protection of human health and the 
    environment. In view of the mobility of environmental problems, and the 
    interdependence of various jurisdictions, it is imperative that all 
    affected sovereigns work cooperatively for environmental protection.
        Finally, capability is a determination that will be made on a case-
    by-case basis. Ordinarily, the information regarding programmatic 
    capability provided in the application for program approval submitted 
    under proposed Secs. 745.350 and 745.352 will be sufficient. 
    Nevertheless, EPA may request, in individual cases, that the Indian 
    Tribe provide a narrative statement or other documents showing that the 
    Indian Tribe is capable of administering the program for which it is 
    seeking approval. See 59 FR 64341.
        Consistent with the simplification rule, no pre-qualification 
    process will be required for Indian Tribes to obtain program approval 
    for the LBP debris management and disposal program. EPA will evaluate 
    whether Indian Tribes have met the four eligibility criteria listed 
    above during the program approval process.
    
    H. Enforcement and Compliance Provisions
    
        1. General. As noted above, before approving a State or Tribal 
    application for authorization to run a LBP debris management and 
    disposal program, the Agency is required to determine that a State or 
    Tribe will provide for the adequate enforcement of its regulations.
        The Agency has developed, at proposed Sec. 745.352, minimum 
    requirements that a State or Tribal LBP debris management and disposal 
    compliance and enforcement program should meet in order to receive 
    authorization. The Agency believes that a State or Indian Tribe that 
    develops an enforcement program based on these requirements would 
    provide ``adequate enforcement'' as that term is used in TSCA section 
    404(b)(2).
        These requirements were developed based on the Agency's experience 
    evaluating and approving other State and Tribal compliance and 
    enforcement programs, as well as the Agency's experience in enforcing 
    its own regulations. These requirements are also generally consistent 
    with those found in the LBP certification and training rule (61 FR 
    45778, August 29, 1996). Further, the Agency's own compliance and 
    enforcement program for these LBP debris management and disposal 
    regulations will contain most of the elements described at 
    Sec. 745.352.
        The compliance and enforcement portion of a State or Tribal LBP 
    debris management and disposal program application should be submitted 
    simultaneously with the other required elements. Today's proposal does 
    not provide separate or interim approval procedures for compliance and 
    enforcement portions of State or Tribal applications. This represents a 
    notable distinction between the compliance and enforcement components 
    in today's proposal and those found in the LBP certification and 
    training rule. The Agency believes that because LBP debris is currently 
    regulated by many authorized State RCRA programs, most States already 
    have the necessary infrastructure in place to administer and enforce a 
    LBP debris management and disposal program. In comparison, relatively 
    few States had LBP certification and training programs in place at the 
    time of the promulgation of that rule (August 29, 1996). EPA believes 
    that the compliance and enforcement application procedures in today's 
    proposal are simpler and will be easier to complete than those in the 
    LBP certification and training rule. Comments from States and Tribes on 
    this issue are encouraged.
        Approval will be given to any State or Indian Tribe which has in 
    place all of the elements of proposed Sec. 745.352, provided the 
    program is also found to be ``at least as protective as'' the Federal 
    program. If a State or Indian Tribe does not have a LBP debris 
    management and disposal program authorized by the Agency within 2 years 
    after final promulgation of the LBP Debris Management and Disposal 
    Rule, the Agency will enforce the provisions at proposed Secs. 745.301 
    through 745.319 as the Federal program.
        In order for a LBP debris management and disposal compliance and 
    enforcement program to be considered adequate for approval, the State 
    or Indian Tribe should certify it has the legal authority and ability 
    to immediately implement the elements at proposed Sec. 745.352. States 
    or Indian Tribes should submit copies of all applicable State or Tribal 
    statutes, regulations, standards and other material that provide the 
    State or Indian Tribe with authority to administer and enforce the lead 
    debris compliance and enforcement program, and copies of the policies, 
    certifications, plans, reports, and any other documents that 
    demonstrate that the program meets the requirements established at 
    proposed Sec. 745.352.
        Finally, the State or Indian Tribe must agree to submit to EPA the 
    Summary on Progress and Performance as described at Sec. 745.355(b)(2). 
    This report should be submitted to EPA by the primary agency for each 
    authorized State or Indian Tribe beginning 12 months after the date of 
    program authorization. Each authorized program will be required to 
    submit the report to the EPA Regional Administrator for the Region in 
    which the State or Indian Tribe is located. The report should be 
    submitted at least once every 12 months for the first 3 years after 
    program approval. As long as these reports indicate that the authorized 
    program is successful, the reporting interval will automatically be 
    extended to every 2 years. If the reports demonstrate problems with 
    implementation, EPA will revert to annual reporting in order to assist 
    the State or Indian Tribe in resolving the problems. These programs 
    will return to biannual reporting after demonstration of successful 
    program implementation.
        2. Required enforcement and compliance elements. The remainder of 
    this Unit describes in more detail the required enforcement and 
    compliance elements at proposed Sec. 745.352. Section 745.352 ``State 
    and Tribal Compliance and Enforcement'' requires that a State or Indian 
    LBP debris management and disposal program should at a minimum have the 
    compliance and enforcement elements discussed below.
        i. Authority to enter (Sec. 745.352(a)(1)). State or Tribal 
    officials should be able to enter premises or facilities where LBP 
    debris management or disposal violations may occur. A State or Tribe 
    must be able to subpoena any person who has possession of records or 
    reports pertaining to LBP debris to produce such documents; in 
    addition, a State or Tribe must be able to compel the appearance of any 
    person to testify concerning any matter relating to LBP debris. A State 
    or Tribe must also designate a judicial body that will have the 
    authority to hold any person in
    
    [[Page 70221]]
    
    contempt who fails or refuses to obey such a duly issued subpoena. They 
    should have the authority to take samples, if necessary, as part of the 
    inspection process. A State or Indian Tribe should have the authority 
    to seek a warrant if access is denied to inspect any place or vehicle.
        ii. Flexible remedies (Sec. 745.352(a)(2)). State or Tribal LBP 
    debris management and disposal programs should provide for a diverse 
    and flexible array of enforcement remedies, which must be reflected in 
    a Standard Enforcement Response Policy. A LBP debris management and 
    disposal program should be able to select from among the available 
    alternatives an enforcement remedy that is particularly suited to the 
    gravity of the violation, taking into account potential or actual risk, 
    including:
         Warning letters, or notices of noncompliance, or notices 
    of violation, or the equivalent.
         Administrative or civil actions (e.g., administrative or 
    civil penalty assessment).
         Authority to apply criminal sanctions or other criminal 
    authority using existing State or Tribal laws, as applicable.
        The Agency understands that Indian Tribes may have restrictions on 
    their ability to levy criminal sanctions. e.g., Oliphant v. Suquamish 
    Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978); 25 U.S.C. 1302(7). This limitation 
    will not necessarily have a negative impact on the ability of an Indian 
    Tribe to receive program authorization. The Indian Tribe should, 
    however, explain in its application the nature and extent of any 
    limitation on its ability to levy criminal sanctions.
        The Agency realizes that requiring Indian Tribes to demonstrate the 
    same criminal authority as States might effectively prohibit any Indian 
    Tribe from obtaining program authorization. The Agency, in Unit VII.F. 
    of this preamble has stated that Indian Tribes are not required to 
    exercise comprehensive criminal enforcement jurisdiction as a condition 
    for LBP debris management and disposal program authorization. Under 
    this proposal, Indian Tribes are required to provide for the timely and 
    appropriate referral of criminal enforcement matters to the EPA 
    Regional Administrator when Tribal enforcement authority does not exist 
    or is not sufficient. Section 745.352(b) of today's proposal requires 
    that such procedures be established in a formal Memorandum of Agreement 
    with the Regional Administrator. This approach is the same as that 
    which the Agency has taken in the context of Tribal programs under the 
    Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. EPA emphasizes that 
    this referral mechanism is not available where limitations on Tribal 
    enforcement arise under purely Tribal law, for example, the Tribal 
    constitution or statutes. It should be further noted that, as in 
    authorized States, EPA retains the authority to take enforcement action 
    if an authorized Indian Tribe does not (or cannot) take such action or 
    fails to enforce adequately.
        iii. Training for compliance and enforcement personnel 
    (Sec. 745.352(a)(3)). A LBP debris management and disposal program 
    should offer training for compliance/enforcement personnel to ensure 
    that the personnel are well trained. Enforcement personnel should 
    understand case development procedures and the maintenance of proper 
    case files. Inspectors should successfully demonstrate knowledge of the 
    requirements of the particular discipline for which they have 
    compliance monitoring and enforcement responsibilities. Inspectors 
    should also be trained in violation discovery, evidence gathering, 
    preservation of evidence and chain-of-custody, and sampling procedures. 
    Instruction should take the form of both hands-on or on-the-job 
    training and the use of prepared training materials. A State and Tribal 
    LBP debris management and disposal program should also implement a 
    process for continuing education of enforcement and inspection 
    personnel.
        iv. Compliance assistance (Sec. 745.352(a)(4)). LBP debris 
    management and disposal compliance and enforcement programs should 
    provide compliance assistance to the public and the regulated community 
    to facilitate awareness and understanding of and compliance with the 
    State or Indian Tribe's LBP debris management and disposal program(s).
        v. Sampling techniques (Sec. 745.352(a)(5)). A State or Tribal 
    compliance and enforcement program should show that the State or Indian 
    Tribe is technologically capable of ensuring compliance with LBP debris 
    management and disposal compliance and enforcement program 
    requirements. As a result, an authorized program should have access to 
    the facilities and equipment necessary to conduct the proper analysis 
    of samples gathered from inspections of sites such as waste facilities, 
    reclamation facilities, and vehicles. A State or Indian Tribe should 
    use a laboratory facility as defined at 40 CFR 745.223 or implement a 
    quality assurance program that ensures appropriate quality of 
    laboratory personnel and protects the integrity of analytical data.
        vi. Handling tips and complaints (Sec. 745.352(a)(6)). An 
    authorized LBP debris management and disposal program should have a 
    method in place to respond to tips from the general public. The 
    compliance and enforcement program should demonstrate the ability to 
    process and react to tips and complaints or other information 
    indicating a violation. EPA expects that the ability to process and 
    react to tips and complaints would, as appropriate, include:
         A method for funneling complaints to a central 
    organizational unit for review.
         A logging system to record the receipt of complaints and 
    to track the stages of a follow-up investigation.
         A mechanism for referring complaints to the appropriate 
    investigative personnel.
         A system for allowing a determination of the status of 
    cases and ensuring correction of any violations.
         A procedure for notifying citizens of the ultimate 
    disposition of their complaints.
         A procedure to conduct swift preliminary investigations of 
    complaints, especially those that allege serious threats to public 
    safety and the environment.
         A pledge of confidentiality to all informants, to 
    encourage members of the public to come forward with tips and 
    complaints.
        vii. Targeting inspections (Sec. 745.352(a)(7)). LBP debris 
    management and disposal compliance and enforcement programs should 
    demonstrate the ability to target inspections to ensure compliance with 
    the LBP debris management and disposal program requirements.
        viii. Follow-up to inspection reports (Sec. 745.352(a)(8)). A State 
    or Indian Tribe should develop a quick turnaround time to review and 
    follow-up on identified violations and information that are gathered 
    from inspections. Such information should be processed within a 
    reasonable time to avoid risks associated with a stagnant 
    investigation. The State or Indian Tribe should be in a position to 
    ensure correction of violations, and, as appropriate, develop and issue 
    enforcement remedies/responses in follow-up to the identification of 
    violations.
        ix. Compliance monitoring and enforcement (Sec. 745.352(a)(9)). A 
    compliance and enforcement program should ensure correction of 
    violations, and encompass either planned and/or responsive lead hazard 
    reduction inspections and development/issuance
    
    [[Page 70222]]
    
    of State or Tribal enforcement responses which are appropriate to the 
    violations.
        x. Tribal memorandum of agreement (MOA)(Sec. 745.352(b)). Indian 
    Tribes should enter into an MOA with the appropriate EPA Regional 
    Administrator regarding criminal enforcement. The MOA should be 
    executed by the Indian Tribe's counterpart to the State Director; e.g., 
    the Director of Tribal Environmental Office, Program or Agency. The MOA 
    should include a provision for timely and appropriate referral to the 
    Regional Administrator of criminal enforcement matters for which the 
    Indian Tribe does not have authority.
        3. Summary on progress and performance. An authorized State or 
    Indian Tribe should provide periodic reports to EPA as specified in 
    Sec. 745.355(b)(2). Section 745.355(b)(2) requires authorized States or 
    Indian Tribes to submit a report which summarizes the results of 
    implementing the State or Indian Tribe's LBP debris management and 
    disposal compliance and enforcement program, including: (1) A summary 
    of the scope of the regulated community within the State or Indian 
    Tribe; (2) the inspections conducted; (3) Enforcement actions taken; 
    (4) compliance assistance provided; and (5) the level of resources 
    committed by the State or Indian Tribe to these activities and any 
    other LBP debris management and disposal administrative and compliance/
    enforcement activities.
        The report should describe any significant changes in the 
    enforcement of the State or Tribal LBP debris management and disposal 
    program implemented during the last reporting period. The report should 
    also summarize the results of the State or Indian Tribe's 
    implementation activities and what the State or Indian Tribe 
    discovered, in general, with regard to compliance and enforcement in 
    the State or Indian Tribe as a result of these activities. The report 
    should also describe how any measures of success were achieved, and 
    directly assess the impact of compliance/enforcement activities on 
    reducing threats to public health.
    
    IX. Rulemaking Record
    
        EPA has established a record for this proposed rule under docket 
    control number OPPTS-62160. A public version of the record without any 
    information claimed to be confidential is available in the TSCA Non-
    Confidential Information Center (NCIC) from noon to 4 p.m., Monday 
    through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The TSCA NCIC is located at 
    EPA headquarters, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
        The rulemaking record contains information considered by the EPA in 
    developing this proposed rule. The record includes: (1) All Federal 
    Register notices, (2) relevant support documents, (3) reports, (4) 
    memoranda and letters and (5) other documents related to this proposed 
    rulemaking.
        Unit X. of this preamble contains the list of documents which the 
    Agency relied upon while developing today's regulation and can be found 
    in the docket. Other documents, not listed there, such as those 
    submitted with written comments from interested parties, are contained 
    in the TSCA Docket office as well. A copy of today's proposed rule is 
    also contained in the public record.
    
    X. References
    
        The following books, articles, reports and sources were used in 
    preparing this notice and were cited in this proposal by the number 
    indicated below:
        1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
    Disease Control. February 21, 1997. ``Update: Blood Lead Levels- United 
    States, 1991-1994.'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Vol. 46, 
    No. 7.
        2. HUD. 1994. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National 
    Housing Survey. Washington, DC.
        3. Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction and Financing Task Force. July 
    1995. Putting the Pieces Together: Controlling Lead Hazards in the 
    Nation's Housing. HUD-1547-LBP.
        4. Task Force on Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction and Financing. 
    April 13, 1994. Letter to Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator, 
    USEPA. Washington, DC.
        5. USEPA. March 1993. Applicability of RCRA Disposal Requirements 
    to Lead-Based Paint Abatement Wastes; Final Report. EPA 747-R-93-006.
        6. HUD. April 1991. ``The HUD Lead-Based Paint Abatement 
    Demonstration (FHA).'' Office of Policy Development and Research.
        7. USEPA. September 1998. TSCA Title IV, Secs. 402/404: Lead-Based 
    Paint Debris Management and Disposal Standards Proposed Rule Economic 
    Analysis. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
        8. Stedman's Medical Dictionary. 1976. William and Wilken Co., 
    Baltimore.
        9. Rabinowitz, Michael. 1987. ``Stable Isotope Mass Spectrometry in 
    Childhood Lead Poisoning.'' Biological Trace Element Research. Vol. 12: 
    223-229.
        10. Yaffe, Y., C.P. Flessel, J.J. Wesolowski, A. del Rosario, G.N. 
    Guirguis, V. Matias, J.W. Gramlich, W.R. Kelly, T.E. Degarmo, and G.C. 
    Coleman. 1983. ``Identification of lead sources in California children 
    using the stable isotope ratio technique.'' Arch Environmental Health. 
    Jul-Aug 38(4):237-45.
        11. Clark, C.S., R.L. Bornschein, P. Succop, S.S. Que Hee, P.B. 
    Hammond, and B. Peace. 1985. ``Condition and Type of Housing as an 
    Indicator of Potential Environmental Lead Exposure and Pediatric Blood 
    Lead Levels.'' Environmental Research. 38:46-53.
        12. Science Application International Corporation. May 1992. 
    Analytical Results of Lead in Construction Debris. Prepared for USEPA's 
    Office of Solid Waste.
        13. Science Application International Corporation. September 1994. 
    Background Document on Lead Abatement Waste Study; Interim Draft. 
    Prepared for USEPA's Office of Solid Waste.
        14. Deutsch, W.J. 1997. Groundwater Geochemistry. Woodward-Clyde, 
    Seattle, WA.
        15. ICF Incorporated. 1995. Construction and Demolition Waste 
    Landfills. EPA 530-R-95-018.
        16. ICF Incorporated. Damage Cases: Construction and Demolition 
    Waste Landfills. EPA 530-R-020.
        17. USEPA. 1996. Hazardous Waste Characteristics Scoping Study. EPA 
    530-R-96-053.
        18. USEPA. June 1998. Groundwater Pathway Analysis for Lead-Based 
    Paint (LBP) Architectural Debris; Background Document.
        19. Clinch, J. Michael. 1994. Summary of C&D Leachate Studies. 
    Prepared for Ohio EPA C&D Landfill Regulation Negotiated Rulemaking 
    Committee.
        20. HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research. December 1990. 
    ``Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the Abatement of Lead-Based Paint 
    in Privately Owned Housing.'' Report to Congress.
        21. USEPA. 1995. Estimates for Disposal of LBP Debris in C&D 
    Landfills. Developed for C&D landfill risk analysis.
        22. EPA. 1997. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with 
    Transformation Products (EPACMTP). Office of Solid Waste.
        (a) Background Document
        (b) Users Manual
        (c) Background Document for Finite Source Methodology
        (d) Background Document for Metals: Methodology
        23. Wu et al. January 1997. Water Resources Research, pp. 21-29.
        24. EPA Science Advisory Board. August 1995. An SAB Report: Review 
    of EPA's Composite Model for Leachate
    
    [[Page 70223]]
    
    Migration with Transformation Products-EPACMTP. Prepared by the OSWER 
    Exposure Model Subcommittee of the Environmental Engineering Committee. 
    EPA-SAB-EEC-95-010
        25. USEPA. January 1996. Office of Solid Waste. Response by USEPA 
    Office of Solid Waste to SAB Review of EPACMTP.
        26. National Association of Demolition Contractors. October 21, 
    1997. Letter to Tim Torma, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
    USEPA, Washington, DC.
        27. Holmes. Hannah 1997. ``Bringing Down the House: Home 
    Deconstructionists Make Salvaging a Class Act.'' Sierra Club Magazine; 
    September/October, 1997: pp. 20-21.
        28. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. National Park Service, 
    Cultural Resources Preservation Assistance. Historic Preservation Brief 
    #37: Appropriate Methods for Reducing Lead-Based Paint Hazards in 
    Historic Housing. Washington, DC, April 1995.
        29. USEPA. November 1993. Management of Whole-Structure Demolition 
    Debris Containing Lead-Based Paint, Office of Waste Programs 
    Enforcement.
        30. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1995. 
    Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards 
    in Housing. Office of Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Poisoning 
    Prevention. June 1995.
        31. Lehman, Timothy. September 15, 1997. USEPA, Office of Pollution 
    Prevention and Toxics. Memorandum to Timothy Torma, USEPA, Office of 
    Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
        32. EPA. November 1984. EPA Policy for the Administration of 
    Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations.
        33. EPA. July 1994. Memorandum of Actions for Strengthening EPA's 
    Tribal Operations.
    
    XI. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
    
    A. Executive Order 12866
    
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
    action is an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under 
    Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
    FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because EPA estimates that this action may 
    result in annual cost savings exceeding $100 million. The Agency 
    submitted today's proposed rule, along with the proposed Suspension 
    under RCRA, to OMB for review under this Executive Order. Any changes 
    made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations have been 
    documented in the public record for this proposal.
        EPA has prepared an economic analysis of the impact of this action, 
    which is contained in a document entitled, ``TSCA Title IV, Sections 
    402/404: LBP Debris Management and Disposal Proposed Rule: Economic 
    Analysis.'' This document is also available in the public record for 
    this proposal.
        The goal of the economic analysis was to identify, quantify, and 
    value the cost savings associated with exempting LBP debris from RCRA 
    Subtitle C and allowing for disposal in C&D landfills, and the 
    incremental costs of compliance with the LBP debris management 
    provisions of the proposed rules. Insofar as the cost savings and 
    reduction in the price of abatements stimulates demand for additional 
    LBP hazard-reducing activities, the analysis identified potential 
    social benefits associated with those cost reductions.
        The following is a brief summary of that analysis.
        1. Costs of the regulatory action. The proposed TSCA rule imposes 
    three new compliance requirements on regulated entities: notification 
    and recordkeeping when LBP debris is transferred, access limitations 
    for LBP debris stored longer than 72 hours, and covering of LBP debris 
    during transport. The compliance costs associated with the new 
    notification and recordkeeping requirements total $30.86 million 
    annually. The access limitation requirement imposes no new compliance 
    costs, because EPA believes that all affected projects are: (1) 
    Completed within the 72 hour timeframe, (2) presently using containers 
    that meet the access limitations requirements (by virtue of their 
    height or use of covers), or (3) capable of using compliant containers 
    at no additional cost. The requirements for covering LBP debris during 
    transport are expected to impose no new costs because transporters 
    generally cover debris already or can provide covered vehicles or 
    containers at no additional cost.
        In addition to these compliance costs, EPA estimates that LBP 
    debris generators, transporters, and disposers will incur $21.61 
    million in the first year following promulgation of the rule to 
    familiarize themselves and their employees with the requirements of the 
    proposed rules, and $1.08 million in subsequent years to familiarize 
    new hires with the provisions of the proposed rules. Finally, as 
    discussed in Section XI.A.3. of this preamble, states incur costs to 
    apply for EPA approval to administer the proposed rules at the state 
    level. EPA estimates that states will incur $0.95 million in the first 
    year to apply for EPA approval and then $0.06 million in the second and 
    third years and biennially thereafter to submit annual reports. Thus, 
    total costs for regulated entities in the first year will be $53.42 
    million in the first year, $32.00 million in years that states submit 
    annual reports (second and third years and biennially thereafter), and 
    $31.94 million in years that state reports are not required.
        The renovation and remodeling sector incurs the largest share of 
    first year compliance costs at $29.34 million, followed by waste 
    transporters, who will incur $15.86 million in the first year. Waste 
    disposal facilities are expected to incur compliance costs of $3.98 
    million in the first year, while abatement and demolition contractors 
    will each incur $1.38 and $1.91 million in first year compliance costs, 
    respectively. States incur the least compliance costs in the first year 
    with $0.95 million.
        2. Benefits of regulatory action. The benefits of the proposed rule 
    are two-fold. First, the proposed rule would result in significant cost 
    savings for consumers of abatement, renovation, remodeling and 
    demolition. These savings would be achieved by allowing the use of C&D 
    landfills as an option for the disposal of LBP debris, and eliminating 
    the hazardous waste determination currently required for LBP debris 
    under RCRA Subtitle C. Second, the cost savings and reduced costs of 
    abatements, renovation, remodeling and demolitions would stimulate 
    demand for those services. The additional activities (in particular 
    abatements) would serve to mitigate the economic impacts of lead risk, 
    including: reduced lifetime earnings due to diminished intelligence, 
    increased educational costs, increased health care costs, costs 
    associated with increased morbidity and mortality, lost work days and 
    lost productivity, and pain and suffering associated with adverse 
    health effects.
        The primary objective of the benefit analysis was to estimate the 
    potential cost savings that would arise from relief from the expensive 
    requirements of hazardous waste analysis, management, transportation, 
    and disposal for LBP debris. Waste generators, in the short-term, would 
    be relieved of the costly burden of managing LBP debris under RCRA 
    Subtitle C. In the long-term, the economic benefits to waste generators 
    are expected to be passed on to the consumers of abatement, renovation, 
    remodeling, and demolition services in the form of lower costs. The net 
    cost savings from the proposed rule are calculated as the baseline 
    costs
    
    [[Page 70224]]
    
    associated with managing and disposing of LBP debris under current 
    requirements minus the proposed rule compliance costs and the costs of 
    disposing of the LBP debris as a nonhazardous waste. The net cost 
    savings represent the potential magnitude of savings that would be 
    passed on to consumers.
        The cost-savings (reduced disposal costs minus new compliance 
    costs) of the proposal are estimated at $97.91 million in the first 
    year. In subsequent years, the estimated cost savings increases to 
    approximately $119 million annually as initial compliance costs are 
    reduced. The demolition sector is estimated to realize the most benefit 
    with a $78.95 million cost savings in the first year. The estimated 
    savings for abatement activities is $36.99 million in the first year 
    and the savings for renovation and remodeling are estimated at $2.75 
    million in the first year. The cost savings in these three sectors are 
    then partially offset by increased costs incurred by waste 
    transporters, waste disposal facilities, and states. The waste 
    transportation sector is estimated to incur an additional $15.86 
    million in costs and the waste disposal industry is estimated to incur 
    new costs totaling $3.98 million. States applying for EPA approval to 
    administer the proposed rules will incur $0.95 million in the first 
    year.
        When the net savings are divided by the baseline number of 
    activities, the demolition sector is expected to see the largest per 
    activity cost-savings with an average savings of $272.50 per project in 
    the first year. The average first year savings in the abatement sector 
    (including target housing, public housing, and commercial buildings) 
    and the renovation and remodeling sector are $176.26 and $0.62 per 
    activity respectively. Waste transporters and waste disposal facilities 
    are expected to incur costs of $3.19 and $0.80, respectively, for each 
    transaction involving LBP debris.
        The secondary objective of the benefit analysis was to determine 
    how a potential change in demand for abatement, renovation, remodeling, 
    and demolition activities associated with a reduction in the costs of 
    those services would reduce the social costs of LBP risk. To the extent 
    that the costs of abatement, renovation, remodeling and demolition 
    decline as an outcome of this proposed rule and these savings are 
    passed on to consumers, there will be a corresponding increase in 
    demand for these activities.
        This increase is likely to be particularly evident in the public 
    housing sector where local housing authorities operate under fixed 
    budgets that often include funds which are earmarked specifically for 
    abatement activity. Thus, any decrease in the cost of abatements should 
    lead to a direct increase in abatement activity in public housing, and 
    a subsequent accelerated depletion of the stock of public housing with 
    LBP hazards. The benefits analysis estimates that if promulgated, the 
    proposed rule would reduce the cost of public housing abatements from a 
    current average of $3,650 per unit to $3,444 per unit, a decline of 
    $206 or 5.6%. In aggregate, the proposal would generate $17.13 million 
    per year in cost savings for public housing abatements. Under the 
    assumption that public funding for LBP abatement remains stable, all 
    public housing units will be abated within 12 years. The estimated 
    $17.13 million in cost savings per year to public housing could be used 
    to fund additional abatements, shortening the time frame for completing 
    all remaining abatements. The analysis estimates that the number of 
    abatements in public housing will increase by 5,454 per year (an 
    increase of 6.6% from the current baseline), eliminating the stock of 
    public housing containing LBP 1 year earlier than predicted in the 
    absence of the proposed rule.
        In the target housing and child-occupied facility sectors, the 
    decreased price of abatement activities is expected to also stimulate 
    demand for abatement, R&R and demolition services. Data on the 
    potential change in the demand for those services is not available, 
    however, and therefore it is not possible to determine the magnitude of 
    the potential benefits.
        For each additional abatement, renovation, remodeling, and 
    demolition activity demanded as a result of the proposed rule, there 
    would be an additional reduction in LBP exposure. The elimination of 
    exposures to LBP hazards associated with these additional activities 
    will reduce the baseline number of cases of adverse health effects such 
    as childhood lead poisoning and increased hypertension among adults.
        In addition to the measured benefits of additional abatement, 
    renovation, remodeling, and demolition activities described in the base 
    analysis, other qualitative benefit categories exist. These categories 
    include reductions in neonatal mortality, adult resident health effects 
    such as hypertension, coronary heart disease and stroke, infant/child 
    neurological effects, and occupational health effects such as 
    hypertension, coronary heart disease, and stroke. Due to data 
    limitations, however, it was not possible to value these benefits.
        3. Costs to States. Under the proposed rules, States, Territories 
    and Tribes may incur costs associated with adopting and implementing 
    both the RCRA TC suspension rule and the TSCA LBP debris management and 
    disposal program. States are not required to implement these rules, and 
    States that do not do so will not incur any costs. Despite the optional 
    nature of the State requirements, EPA considers these costs 
    attributable to the proposed rules and has prepared estimates of the 
    potential costs that will be incurred by States.
        Under the proposed TSCA rule, States would need to demonstrate and 
    certify to EPA that they have adopted requirements at the State level 
    that are at least as protective as the proposed Federal LBP debris 
    program. As a conservative assumption (from a cost standpoint), EPA has 
    assumed that 55 States, Tribes and Territories apply for such 
    authorization. EPA estimates that each entity would incur costs of 
    approximately $9,900 in the first year to modify State laws, assemble 
    an application package, and make the necessary certifications to EPA. 
    States receiving authorization would be required to submit progress 
    reports in the first 3 years after receiving authorization and 
    biennially thereafter on their LBP management programs, which would 
    cost them an estimated $1,100 for each report, or a total of $0.06 
    million for all States. In total, the highest costs to States would 
    occur in the first year, when the combined State costs would total 
    $0.55 million.
        Under the proposed RCRA TC suspension rule, States that are 
    authorized for TC and that have an approved LBP debris management 
    program in place (or that have certified to EPA that their programs are 
    as protective as the Federal requirements) would be eligible to 
    implement the TC rule at the State level. Presently, there are 35 
    States with authorized TC programs and another 10 States with TC rules 
    adopted that are awaiting EPA authorization. Assuming again a 
    conservative scenario (from a cost standpoint), if all 45 States 
    eventually apply and incur costs similar to those incurred to implement 
    the LBP debris program (approximately $8,800 per State), the total 
    costs of the TC rule to States would be $0.40 million in the first 
    year.
        The combined costs incurred by States to implement both the LBP 
    debris program and the TC suspension rule would be $0.95 million in the 
    first year under worst-case assumptions. In the second and third years 
    and biennially
    
    [[Page 70225]]
    
    thereafter, States would only incur $0.06 million to prepare and submit 
    the required LBP debris management progress report.
        4. Sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analyses were prepared to 
    examine the effects of key assumptions and modeling parameters on the 
    pre- and post-regulatory costs, and their impact on the cost savings of 
    the proposed rule. These analyses considered the effects of alternative 
    TCLP failure rates for LBP debris, alternative assumptions concerning 
    how frequently generators perform TCLP testing on LBP debris, 
    alternative estimates of how often generators rely on relevant 
    knowledge rather than TCLP testing to make hazardous waste 
    determinations, how commonly generators use XRF testing to make 
    hazardous waste determinations instead of TCLP, the time required to 
    perform notifications under the proposed rule, and the number of States 
    that will apply for EPA approval to administer the proposed TC 
    suspension and LBP debris management and disposal program. In total, 16 
    different scenarios were generated by varying these assumptions.
        In the sensitivity analysis, the net impact of the rule varies from 
    a net savings of $295.25 million in the first year to a net savings of 
    $46.04 million in the first year. The upper bound represents over a 
    300% increase over the results obtained using all of the baseline 
    assumptions ($97.91 million in the first year) while the lower bound 
    represents a 53% decrease from the baseline cost savings. The upper 
    bound scenario assumed more frequent use of XRF testing in the baseline 
    scenario, which increased the baseline level of testing costs. The 
    lower bound assumed that less testing and less reliance on relevant 
    knowledge is used in identifying LBP debris compared to assumptions 
    used in the baseline scenario. These two assumptions combined to reduce 
    the baseline costs of waste disposal, thus reducing the potential cost 
    savings of the proposed rules. The median estimate among the 
    sensitivity analyses was $107.70 million in the first year (this 
    scenario assumes a only 23 states would apply for EPA approval under 
    the TC suspension and 28 states would apply under the TSCA rule). Six 
    of the sensitivity analyses generated lower cost savings estimates and 
    10 scenarios generated higher cost savings estimates compared to the 
    baseline scenario.
    
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
    U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this action will 
    not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number 
    of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is included 
    in the small entity analysis that was conducted as part of the economic 
    analysis. This proposed rule will result in substantial cost and burden 
    savings for all of the entities involved in LBP activities, regardless 
    of the size of the entity. EPA's analysis, as summarized above, shows 
    that this proposed rule consistently imposes compliance costs that are 
    less than 1% of any industry's revenues, and in many cases, less than 
    0.1% of the industry's revenues. Information relating to this 
    determination is provided upon request to the Chief Counsel for 
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and is included in the 
    docket for this rulemaking.
    
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        The information collection requirements contained in this proposed 
    rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget under 
    the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and in accordance 
    with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11. An Information Collection Request 
    (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (EPA ICR No. 1822.01) and a 
    copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information 
    Division (2137), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
    Washington, DC 20460, by calling (202) 260-2740, or electronically by 
    sending an e-mail message to, farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov.'' An 
    electronic copy of the ICR has also been posted with the Federal 
    Register notice on EPA's homepage at ``www.epa.gov/icr.'' The 
    information requirements contained in this proposal are not effective 
    until promulgation and OMB approval, which is presented by a currently 
    valid OMB control number. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a 
    person is not required to respond to a collection of information 
    subject to OMB approval under the PRA unless it displays a currently 
    valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations 
    after initial publication in the Federal Register are maintained in a 
    list at 40 CFR part 9.
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA is 
    required to estimate the notification, reporting and recordkeeping 
    costs and burdens associated with the requirements specified in the 
    proposed rule. The proposed rules contain three requirements that would 
    impose paperwork burdens: reading and interpreting the proposed rules, 
    the notification and recordkeeping requirement of the TSCA rule, and 
    the state application requirement under both rules. In addition to 
    these new burdens, exempting LBP debris from RCRA subtitle C will 
    reduce the burden associated with manifesting for LBP debris handled as 
    hazardous waste. Paperwork burdens are estimated to be 1.6 million 
    hours annually, with a total costs of $36.9 million annually.
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act ``burden'' means the total time, 
    effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 
    maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a 
    Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 
    develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
    purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 
    processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 
    information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 
    applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to 
    respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
    and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
    disclose the information.
        Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
    the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
    methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
    automated collection techniques. The final rule will respond to any OMB 
    or public comments on the information collection requirements contained 
    in this proposal.
    
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    
        Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
    (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4), EPA has determined that this proposed action 
    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 1 year. The cost associated 
    with this action are described in the Executive Order 12866 section 
    above.
        UMRA generally excludes from the definition of a ``Federal 
    intergovernmental mandate'' (in sections 202, 203, and 205) duties that 
    arise from participation in a voluntary Federal program. Adoption by 
    States or Indian Tribes of today's proposed rule and the companion RCRA 
    temporary TC suspension is voluntary and imposes no Federal 
    intergovernmental mandate within the meaning of the Act. Because any 
    possible burden on such governmental units would be incurred
    
    [[Page 70226]]
    
    as a result of voluntary action by those governmental units, there is 
    not an unfunded mandate.
        In addition, EPA has determined that today's proposed rule will not 
    significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal 
    governments, so no action is needed under section 203 of the UMRA. As 
    indicated in Unit XI.B. of this preamble, if small governments, such as 
    small municipalities or Tribes, are generators of LBP debris covered 
    under today's proposed standards, then they will save the costs of 
    complying with the RCRA TC rule and any costs of complying with RCRA 
    Subtitle C standards when LBP debris is determined to be hazardous.
        As a result, this proposed action is not subject to the 
    requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of UMRA.
    
    E. Executive Order 12875
    
        Under Executive Order 12875, entitled ``Enhancing Intergovernmental 
    Partnerships'' (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may not issue a 
    regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate 
    upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government 
    provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
    incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must 
    provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the 
    extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
    State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, 
    copies of any written communications from the governments, and a 
    statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, 
    Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process 
    permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local 
    and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
    development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded 
    mandates.''
        Today's proposed rule does not create a mandate on State, local or 
    tribal governments. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable 
    duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) 
    of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this proprosed rule. 
    Nevertheless, EPA has consulted with these governmental entities. 
    Throughout the development of today's proposed rules, the Agency has 
    worked closely with States, Tribal, and local governments. A more 
    detailed discussion of these activities has been included in Unit V.A. 
    of this preamble on stakeholder consultation. In working with these 
    various governmental entities, EPA has provided notice to small 
    governments of the provisions of today's proposed rule and obtained 
    meaningful and timely input from them. Furthermore, EPA will continue 
    these outreach efforts during the comment period and subsequent to 
    promulgation.
    
    F. Executive Order 13084
    
        Under Executive Order 13084, entitled ``Consultation and 
    Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (63 FR 27655, May 19, 
    1998), EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, 
    that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal 
    governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on 
    those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
    necessary to pay the direct compliance costsincurred by the tribal 
    governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
    of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
    preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
    consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
    summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
    need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
    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.''
        Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
    communities of Indian tribal governments. The proposed rule does not 
    impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
    requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
    this proposed rule. Nevertheless, as indicated above and discussed in 
    more detail in Unit IV.A. of this preamble, EPA has consulted with 
    State, local and Tribal governments during the development of these 
    proposed rules. EPA will continue these outreach efforts during the 
    comment period and subsequent to promulgation.
    
    G. Executive Order 12898
    
        Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 entitled ``Federal Actions to 
    Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
    Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency has 
    considered environmental justice related issues with regard to the 
    potential impacts of this proposed action on the environmental and 
    health conditions in low-income and minority communities. This 
    examination shows that existing LBP hazards are a risk to all segments 
    of the population living in pre-1978 housing. However, literature 
    indicates that some segments of our society are at relatively greater 
    risk than others.
        A recent study by NHANES indicates that children of urban, minority 
    (e.g., African American, Asian Pacific American, Hispanic American, 
    American Indian), or low-income families, or who live in older housing, 
    continue to be most vulnerable to lead poisoning and elevated blood-
    lead levels. The February 21, 1997 Center for Disease Control's 
    Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report states that: ``Despite the recent 
    and large declines in BLLs [blood lead levels], the risk for lead 
    exposure remains disproportionately high for some groups, including 
    children who are poor, non-Hispanic black, Mexican American, living in 
    large metropolitan areas, or living in older housing.''
        Although the baseline risks from LBP fall disproportionately on 
    poorer sub-populations, it may be more likely that abatements will take 
    place in residential dwellings occupied by mid- to upper-level income 
    households. Abatements are voluntary, and wealthier households are more 
    likely to have the financial resources to abate an existing problem in 
    their home, or to avoid LBP hazards by not moving into a residential 
    dwelling with LBP. Even though a national strategy of eliminating LBP 
    hazards targets a problem affecting a greater share of poor households 
    and minorities, the impact of income on the ability to undertake 
    voluntary abatements may result in an inequitable distribution of LBP 
    risks.
        By making abatements more affordable, today's proposal helps to 
    address this situation. To the extent that the proposal results in 
    additional abatements, renovations, remodeling, and demolitions that 
    reduce LBP hazards, there is a likelihood that poor and minority 
    populations will benefit the most from risk reductions. This potential 
    will likely be realized to the greatest extent in the case of public 
    housing units with LBP hazards. The decrease in the cost of abatements 
    in public housing will lead to an increase in abatement activity in 
    public housing and a subsequent acceleration in the depletion of public 
    housing with LBP hazards. The occupants of these public housing units 
    are disproportionately lower income and minority populations. As the 
    price of abatements is lowered as a result of cost savings associated 
    with today's proposed rule, more low-income families will be able to 
    afford to make
    
    [[Page 70227]]
    
    the decision to remove LBP hazards from their homes.
        EPA also determined that the potential impact on minority-owned 
    businesses in industries affected by the proposed rule would be 
    minimal. Available information suggests that minority-owned business 
    would not particularly benefit from this proposed rule, since minority 
    ownership rates for firms that generate LBP debris are no higher than 
    average.
    
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    
        Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
    Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus 
    standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
    inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
    consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
    specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
    etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard 
    bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
    standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide 
    Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation 
    of the reasons for not using such standards.
        EPA is not proposing any new test methods or other technical 
    standards as part of today's proposed TSCA rule for LBP debris. Thus, 
    the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus 
    standards in developing this proposed rule. EPA invites public comment 
    on this analysis.
    
    I. Executive Order 13045
    
        This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled 
    ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
    Risks,'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this proposal is not an 
    economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866. 
    The environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action have 
    a beneficial effect on children. This proposal will benefit children by 
    allowing less costly management and disposal of LBP therefore lessening 
    the cost of abatements. Reducing the costs of abatements will also 
    reduce the amount of time needed to complete abatements in public 
    housing. Lower abatement costs will increase the amount of private 
    homes undergoing abatements. By reducing costs associated with 
    management and disposal of LBP debris, the Agency believes that the 
    number of abatements will increase thus resulting in a reduction of 
    children exposed to LBP. Children are the primary beneficiaries of this 
    proposed rule as well as from the entire Lead Program.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745
    
        Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, 
    Lead poisoning, Management and disposal of LBP, Reporting and 
    recordkeeping requirements.
    
        Dated: December 9, 1998.
    
    Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator.
    
        Therefore, 40 CFR part 745 is proposed to be amended as follows:
    
    PART 745--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for part 745 is revised to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692, and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.
    
        2. By adding a new subpart P to read as follows:
    Subpart P--Management and Disposal of Lead-Based Paint Debris
    Sec.
    745.301   Scope and applicability.
    745.303   Definitions.
    745.305   Lead-based paint hazards.
    745.307   Generator responsibilities.
    745.308   Transporter responsibilities.
    745.309   Disposal and reclamation facility owner or operator 
    responsibilities.
    745.311   General requirements for the reuse and storage of lead-
    based paint debris.
    745.313   Notification and recordkeeping requirements.
    745.315   Certification of workers.
    745.317   Enforcement.
    745.318   Inspections.
    745.319   Effective dates.
    
    Subpart P--Management and Disposal for Lead-Based Paint Debris
    
    
    Sec. 745.301   Scope and applicability.
    
        (a) Regulated entities. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and 
    (d) of this section, this subpart applies to all persons, individuals, 
    and firms, who generate, store, transport, reuse, offer for reuse, 
    reclaim and/or dispose of lead-based paint debris.
        (b) Exclusion of homeowners. This subpart does not apply to lead-
    based paint debris generated by persons who conduct abatement or 
    renovation and remodeling activities themselves in target housing that 
    they own, unless the housing is occupied by a person or persons other 
    than the owner or the owners' immediate family while the lead-based 
    paint debris is being generated.
        (c) Other regulatory authorities. Lead-based paint debris subject 
    to this subpart may also be subject to additional requirements under 
    other regulatory authorities (e.g., the Resource Conservation and 
    Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA)).
        (d) Lead-based paint removal. If lead-based paint is removed from 
    lead-based paint debris and the remaining material has levels of lead 
    less than 1 mg/cm2, the material is no longer subject to the 
    requirements in this subpart. Waste products generated during removal 
    of lead-based paint (e.g., paint chips, paint dust, solvents) may be 
    subject to other regulatory authorities (e.g., RCRA, CAA, non-Title IV 
    TSCA authorities).
    
    
    Sec. 745.303   Definitions.
    
        The definitions in subparts A and L of this part apply to this 
    subpart. In addition, the following definitions apply:
        Abatement means any measure or set of measures designed to 
    permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards. Abatement includes, but 
    is not limited to:
        (1) The removal of lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust, the 
    permanent enclosure or encapsulation of lead-based paint, the 
    replacement of lead-painted surfaces or fixtures, and the removal or 
    covering of lead-contaminated soil.
        (2) All preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-abatement 
    clearance testing activities associated with such measures.
        (3) Specifically, abatement includes, but is not limited to:
        (i) Projects for which there is a written contract or other 
    documentation, which provides that an individual or firm will be 
    conducting activities in or to a residential dwelling or child-occupied 
    facility that:
        (A) Shall result in the permanent elimination of lead-based paint 
    hazards; or
        (B) Are designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards 
    and are described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this definition.
        (ii) Projects resulting in the permanent elimination of lead-based 
    paint hazards, conducted by firms or individuals certified in 
    accordance with Sec. 745.226, unless such projects are covered by 
    paragraph (4) of this definition.
        (iii) Projects resulting in the permanent elimination of lead-based 
    paint hazards, conducted by firms or individuals who, through their 
    company name or promotional literature, represent, advertise, or hold 
    themselves out to be in the business of performing lead-based paint 
    activities as identified and defined by this section, unless such
    
    [[Page 70228]]
    
    projects are covered by paragraph (4) of this definition; or
        (iv) Projects resulting in the permanent elimination of lead-based 
    paint hazards, that are conducted in response to State or local 
    abatement orders.
        (4) Abatement does not include renovation, remodeling, landscaping 
    or other activities, when such activities are not designed to 
    permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, but, instead, are 
    designed to repair, restore, or remodel a given structure or dwelling, 
    even though these activities may incidentally result in a reduction or 
    elimination of lead-based paint hazards. Furthermore, abatement does 
    not include interim controls, operations and maintenance activities, or 
    other measures and activities designed to temporarily, but not 
    permanently, reduce lead-based paint hazards.
        Artifact means an item that is not used as a structural or utility 
    (e.g., electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning) component of a 
    building or other structure but is used for decorative or other 
    purposes.
        Commercial building means any building which is used primarily for 
    commercial or industrial activity including but not limited to 
    manufacturing, service, repair, or storage.
        Construction and demolition (C&D) landfill means a solid waste 
    disposal facility subject to the requirements in part 257, subparts A 
    or B of this chapter that does not receive hazardous waste (defined in 
    Sec. 261.3 of this chapter) (other than conditionally exempt small 
    quantity generator waste (defined in Sec. 261.5 of this chapter)) or 
    industrial solid waste (defined in Sec. 258.2 of this chapter). A C&D 
    landfill typically receives any one or more of the following types of 
    solid wastes: roadwork material, excavated material, demolition waste, 
    construction/renovation waste, and site clearance waste. Municipal 
    solid waste landfill units as defined in Sec. 258.2 of this chapter are 
    not C&D landfills.
        Deleading means activities conducted by a person who offers to 
    eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards or to plan such 
    activities in public buildings, commercial buildings, or steel 
    structures.
        Demolition means the wrecking, razing, or destroying of any 
    building or significant element thereof using a method that generates 
    undifferentiated rubble.
        Deteriorated paint means paint that is cracking, flaking, chipping, 
    peeling, or otherwise separting from the substrate of a building 
    component.
        Dispose means intentionally or accidentally to discard, throw away, 
    or otherwise undertake any action resulting in the placement of lead-
    based paint debris in any location where it is not destined to be 
    stored, reused, or reclaimed in accordance with this subpart. 
    Application of lead-based paint debris as mulch, topsoil, ground cover, 
    landscaping material, roadbed material, fill material or for any 
    purpose which would require shredding, grinding, compacting, burying or 
    mixing with soil is disposal. Any burning of lead-based paint debris 
    that is not reclamation is disposal.
        Encapsulation means the application of a substance that forms a 
    barrier between lead-based paint and the environment, using a liquid-
    applied coating (with or without reinforcement materials) or an 
    adhesively-bonded covering material.
        Generator means any person, by site, whose act or process produces 
    lead-based paint debris or whose act first causes lead-based paint 
    debris to become subject to this part.
        Indian Country means:
        (1) All land within the limits of any American Indian reservation 
    under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, notwithstanding the 
    issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running throughout 
    the reservation.
        (2) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the 
    United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired 
    territory thereof, and whether within or outside the limits of a State.
        (3) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles which have not been 
    extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.
        Indian Tribe or Tribe means any Indian Tribe, band, nation, or 
    community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exercising 
    substantial governmental duties and powers.
        Lead-based paint means paint or other surface coatings that contain 
    lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligrams per centimeter squared or 
    more than 0.5 percent by weight.
        Lead-based paint architectural component debris (LBPACD) means:
        (1) Elements or fixtures, or portions thereof, of commercial 
    buildings, public buildings, or target housing that are coated wholly 
    or in part with or adhered to by lead-based paint. These include, but 
    are not limited to interior components such as: ceilings, crown 
    molding, walls, chair rails, doors, door trim, floors, fireplaces, 
    radiators and other heating units, shelves, shelf supports, stair 
    treads, stair risers, stair stringers, newel posts, railing caps, 
    balustrades, windows and trim, including sashes, window heads, jambs, 
    sills, stools and troughs, built-in cabinets, columns, beams, bathroom 
    vanities, and counter tops; and exterior components such as: painted 
    roofing, chimneys, flashing, gutters and downspouts, ceilings, soffits, 
    facias, rake boards, cornerboards, bulkheads, doors and door trim, 
    fences, floors, joists, lattice work, railings and railing caps, 
    siding, handrails, stair risers and treads, stair stringers, columns, 
    balustrades, window sills or stools and troughs, casings, sashes and 
    wells.
        (2) LBPACD is generated when an architectural component which is 
    coated wholly or in part with or adhered to by lead-based paint is 
    displaced and separated from commercial buildings, public buildings, or 
    target housing as a result of abatement, deleading, renovation or 
    remodeling activities. LBPACD does not include other types of lead-
    based paint waste such as paint chips, paint dust, sludges, solvents, 
    vacuum filter materials, wash water, contaminated and decontaminated 
    protective clothing and equipment except that paint chips and dust 
    which are created after LBPACD is placed in a container or vehicle for 
    transport to a disposal or reclamation facility specified in 
    Sec. 745.309 is considered LBPACD.
        (3) LBPACD which is reused in compliance with this subpart is no 
    longer LBPACD.
        Lead-based paint debris means lead-based paint demolition debris or 
    lead-based paint architectural component debris.
        Lead-based paint demolition debris means any solid material which 
    results from the demolition of target housing, public buildings, or 
    commercial buildings which are coated wholly or in part with or adhered 
    to by lead-based paint at the time of demolition.
        Person means any natural or judicial person including any 
    individual, corporation, partnership, or association; any Indian Tribe, 
    State or political subdivision thereof; any interstate body; and any 
    department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal government.
        Public building means any building constructed prior to 1978 which 
    is generally open to the public or occupied or visited by the public, 
    including but not limited to schools, daycare centers, museums, airport 
    terminals, hospitals, stores, restaurants, office buildings, convention 
    centers, and government buildings. Note: ``child-occupied facilities'' 
    as defined at Sec. 745.223 are included in the definition of public 
    building.
    
    [[Page 70229]]
    
        Reclaim or reclamation means to procure usable substances from 
    lead-based paint debris. Examples of reclamation include the burning of 
    lead-based paint debris for energy value, processing of lead-based 
    paint debris in a smelter to obtain lead, or removing lead-based paint 
    from debris prior to reuse of a component.
        Remodeling means any construction-related work on an existing 
    property intended to either maintain or improve the property that 
    results in the disturbance of painted surfaces.
        Renovation means the modification of any existing structure, or 
    portion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces, 
    unless that activity is performed as part of an abatement as defined in 
    this part. The term renovation includes but is not limited to: the 
    removal or modification of painted surfaces or painted components 
    (e.g., modification of painted doors, surface preparation activity 
    (such as sanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate 
    paint dust)); the removal of large structures (e.g., walls, ceiling, 
    large surface replastering, major re-plumbing); and window replacement.
        Reuse means to use again for any purpose other than reclamation or 
    disposal. Examples of reuse include moving doors, windows or other 
    components from one structure to another to be put to a similar use.
        Site means the same or geographically contiguous property which may 
    be divided by public or private right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties 
    owned by the same person but connected by a right-of-way which the 
    owner controls and to which the public does not have access, are 
    considered part of a single site.
        Storage means the holding of lead-based paint debris for a 
    temporary period.
        Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except 
    housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child 
    who is less than 6 years of age or under resides or is expected to 
    reside in such housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities) or 
    any 0-bedroom dwelling.
        Transfer for reuse means to physically relocate, or convey 
    ownership of a building component prior to reuse.
    
    
    Sec. 745.305   Lead-based paint hazards.
    
        The following are lead-based paint hazards:
        (a) Management or disposal of lead-based paint debris not in 
    compliance with this subpart.
        (b) Reuse or transfer for reuse of lead-based paint debris which is 
    coated in part or in whole with deteriorated paint.
    
    
    Sec. 745.307   Generator responsibilities.
    
        (a) Determination of presence of lead-based paint debris. (1) 
    Generators of lead-based paint debris are responsible for determining 
    if lead-based paint debris is present. To make this determination, 
    generators may:
        (i) Test the waste for the presence of lead-based paint.
        (ii) Use their knowledge of the waste.
        (iii) Assume that lead-based paint debris is present.
        (2) Generators incorrectly determining that lead-based paint debris 
    is not present are liable as separate violations of TSCA for any 
    subsequent storage, transportation, disposal, reclamation or reuse of 
    lead-based paint debris not in compliance with this subpart.
        (b) Other generator responsibilities. Generators of lead-based 
    paint debris must comply with Secs. 745.311 and 745.313 and may not:
        (1) Transport, or arrange for the transportation of lead-based 
    paint debris in any manner other than specified in Sec. 745.308.
        (2) Dispose of, or arrange for the disposal of, lead-based paint 
    debris at any facility not specified in Sec. 745.309(a).
        (3) Reclaim, or arrange for the reclamation of, lead-based paint 
    debris at any facility not specified in Sec. 745.309(b).
        (4) Transfer lead-based paint debris to any party other than for 
    reuse, storage, transport, disposal or reclamation in compliance with 
    this subpart.
    
    
    Sec. 745.308   Transporter responsibilities.
    
        Transporters of lead-based paint debris must comply with 
    Secs. 745.311 and 745.313 and may not:
        (a) Transport or arrange for the transportation of lead-based paint 
    debris off-site in any vehicle without a cover that prevents visibly 
    identifiable releases of dust or debris.
        (b) Dispose of, or arrange for the disposal of, lead-based paint 
    debris at any facility not specified in Sec. 745.309(a).
        (c) Reclaim, or arrange for the reclamation of, lead-based paint 
    debris at any facility not specified in Sec. 745.309(b).
        (d) Transfer lead-based paint debris to any party other than for 
    reuse, storage, transport, disposal or reclamation in compliance with 
    this subpart.
    
    
    Sec. 745.309   Disposal and reclamation facility owner or operator 
    responsibilities.
    
        (a) Disposal facility responsibilities. Owners or operators of 
    waste disposal facilities must comply with Secs. 745.311 and 745.313 
    and may not:
        (1) Accept lead-based paint debris for disposal in any facility 
    other than:
        (i) A construction and demolition landfill as defined in this 
    subpart.
        (ii) A facility which does not accept industrial waste but is 
    subject to the requirements in part 257, subpart B of this chapter 
    applicable to non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units 
    receiving conditionally exempt small quantity generated waste (as 
    defined in Sec. 261.5 of this chapter).
        (iii) A hazardous waste disposal facility permitted under part 270 
    of this chapter.
        (iv) A hazardous waste disposal facility that is authorized to 
    manage hazardous waste by a State that has a hazardous waste management 
    program approved under part 271 of this chapter.
        (v) A hazardous waste disposal facility that has qualified for 
    interim status to manage hazardous waste under RCRA section 3005(e).
        (vi) A facility subject to the requirements of part 60, subparts 
    Cb, Eb, or part 63, subpart X (such as a secondary lead smelter or a 
    municipal combustor) of this chapter.
        (2) Transport or arrange for the transportation of lead-based paint 
    debris in any vehicle without a cover that prevents any visibly 
    identifiable release of dust or debris.
        (3) Reclaim lead-based paint debris except in a facility subject to 
    the requirements of Sec. 745.309(b).
        (4) Transfer lead-based paint debris to any party other than for 
    reuse, storage, transport, disposal, or reclamation in compliance with 
    this subpart.
        (b) Reclamation facility responsibilities. An owner or operator of 
    a reclamation facility must comply with Secs. 745.311 and 745.313. 
    Reclamation facilities burning, incinerating or smelting may accept 
    lead-based paint debris for reclamation only in a facility subject to 
    the requirements of part 60, subparts Cb, Eb, or part 63, subpart X of 
    this chapter.
        (1) An owner or operator of a reclamation facility may not 
    transport or arrange for the transportation of lead-based paint debris 
    in any vehicle without a cover that prevents any visibly identifiable 
    release of dust or debris.
        (2) An owner or operator of a reclamation facility may not dispose 
    of, or arrange for the disposal of, lead-based paint debris at any 
    facility not specified in Sec. 745.309(a).
        (3) An owner or operator of a reclamation facility may not transfer 
    lead-based paint debris to any party other than for reuse, storage, 
    transport, disposal or reclamation in compliance with this subpart.
    
    [[Page 70230]]
    
    Sec. 745.311   General requirements for the reuse and storage of lead-
    based paint debris.
    
        Generators and transporters of lead-based paint debris, owners or 
    operators of disposal or reclamation facilities accepting lead-based 
    paint debris, or owners or operators of any enterprise offering lead-
    based paint debris for reuse may not reuse, offer for reuse, or store 
    lead-based paint debris, or transfer lead-based paint debris to other 
    parties for reuse or storage unless the reuse or storage is in 
    compliance with all requirements in this subpart.
        (a) Reuse. Lead-based paint debris that is coated in part or whole 
    with deteriorated paint identified as a lead-based paint hazard at 
    Sec. 745.305(b) may not be reused or offered for reuse as a building or 
    structural component or artifact or transferred to another party for 
    such reuse unless the lead-based paint is completely removed. lead-
    based paint debris may be transferred to a reclamation facility for 
    removal of lead-based paint prior to reuse.
        (b) Storage. (1) With the exception of demolition debris, may not 
    be stored at any site (including the site where the lead-based paint 
    debris was generated) for more than 72 hours from the time of 
    generation without one of the following access limitations:
        (i) Enclosing lead-based paint debris in closed or covered 
    receptacles (e.g., containers, drums, mobile trailers, or covered 
    dumpsters).
        (ii) Keeping lead-based paint debris in a dumpster or container 
    which is at least 6 feet tall.
        (iii) Keeping lead-based paint debris in fenced areas that are 
    locked when work activities are not being performed on the site.
        (iv) Keeping lead-based paint debris in an unoccupied or non-
    residential structure which is locked when work activities are not 
    being performed on the site.
        (v) Keeping lead-based paint debris on an unoccupied or non-
    residential level of a multi-story structure and keeping the level 
    locked when work activities are not being performed on the site.
        (2) May not be stored at any site or combination of sites for a 
    period exceeding 180 days.
        (3) May be stored in a covered transport vehicle for all or a 
    portion of this 180-day period.
    
    
    Sec. 745.313   Notification and recordkeeping requirements.
    
        (a) Notification. When generators and transporters of lead-based 
    paint debris, owners or operators of disposal or reclamation facilities 
    accepting lead-based paint debris, or owners or operators of any 
    enterprise offering lead-based paint debris for reuse transfer lead-
    based paint debris (transferor) to any other person (recipient), for 
    any reason, the transferor must notify the recipient in writing of the 
    presence of lead-based paint debris. The Notification must:
        (1) Disclose the presence of lead-based paint debris.
        (2) Indicate the date of generation of the lead-based paint debris.
        (3) Be signed and dated by the recipient.
        (4) Be signed and dated by the transferor.
        (5) Contain the generator's name and address.
        (6) Include a citation referring the recipient to this subpart.
        (b) Recordkeeping. The transferor and the recipient must each 
    retain a copy of the Notification for a minimum of 3 years from the 
    date that the Notification is signed by the recipient.
    
    
    Sec. 745.315   Certification of workers.
    
        Individuals and firms engaged in the transport, reuse, storage, 
    disposal or reclamation of lead-based paint debris or in offering lead-
    based paint debris for any such activity whose practices are in 
    compliance with the requirements of this subpart are deemed certified 
    by this section to engage in the transport, reuse, storage, reclamation 
    or disposal of lead-based paint debris pursuant to section 402 of the 
    Toxic Substances Control Act.
    
    
    Sec. 745.317   Enforcement.
    
        (a) Failure or refusal of any person to comply with Secs. 745.307, 
    745.308, 745.309, 745.311, 745.313 or 745.315 is a prohibited act under 
    15 U.S.C. 2689 of the Toxic Substances Control Act and may subject a 
    violator to civil and criminal sanctions pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2615 for 
    each violation.
        (b) Failure or refusal of any person to establish, maintain, 
    provide, copy, or permit access to records or reports as required by 
    Sec. 745.313 is a prohibited act under 15 U.S.C. 2689 of the Toxic 
    Substances Control Act.
        (c) Failure or refusal of any person to permit entry or inspection 
    as required by Sec. 745.318 or 15 U.S.C. 2610 of the Toxic Substances 
    Control Act is a prohibited act under 15 U.S.C. 2689 of the Toxic 
    Substances Control Act.
    
    
    Sec. 745.318   Inspections.
    
        EPA may conduct reasonable inspections pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2610 
    of the Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure compliance with this 
    subpart.
    
    
    Sec. 745.319   Effective dates.
    
        EPA will begin enforcement of the provisions at Secs. 745.307 
    through 745.318 on [insert the date 2 years after date of publication 
    of the final rule in the Federal Register] in any State or Indian 
    Country which does not have a lead-based paint debris management and 
    disposal program authorized under subpart Q of this part in effect by 
    that date.
        3. By revising the heading for subpart Q to read as follows:
    Subpart Q--State and Tribal Lead-Based Paint Debris Management and 
    Disposal Programs
        4. In Sec. 745.320, by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 745.320   Scope and purpose.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) For State or tribal lead-based paint management and disposal 
    programs, a State or Indian Tribe may seek authorization to administer 
    and enforce Secs. 745.307 through 745.315. The provisions of 
    Secs. 745.301, 745.303, 745.317, 745.318 and 745.319 shall be 
    applicable for the purposes of such program authorization.
        5. By adding new Secs. 745.341 through 745.359 to subpart Q to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 745.341   Options for lead-based paint debris management and 
    disposal programs in States and Indian Country.
    
        (a) State and Tribal programs. A State or Indian Tribe may apply to 
    EPA for authorization to administer and enforce a lead-based paint 
    debris management and disposal program. No program application will be 
    approved unless EPA finds that the program is at least as protective as 
    the Federal requirements in Secs. 745.307 through 745.319 and that it 
    provides adequate enforcement.
        (b) EPA administration and enforcement in States and Tribes without 
    authorized programs. If a State or Indian Tribe does not have a lead-
    based paint debris management and disposal program authorized under 
    this subpart and in effect on or before the date which is 2 years after 
    the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register, EPA will 
    on such date, begin enforcement of the provisions at Secs. 745.307 
    through 745.319 as the Federal program for that State or Indian 
    Country.
    
    
    Sec. 745.344   Application for authorization of State and Tribal 
    programs.
    
        This section establishes requirements for State or Tribal 
    applications to EPA to administer and enforce a lead-based paint debris 
    management and disposal program under TSCA section 404. This section 
    also establishes the public
    
    [[Page 70231]]
    
    participation procedures EPA will follow as part of its review of State 
    or Tribal applications.
        (a) Public comment. Before submitting an application to EPA for 
    program authorization, a State or Indian Tribe must:
        (1) Issue in the State or Indian Country a public notice of intent 
    to seek authorization. The comment period on the public notice must be 
    at least 30 days.
        (2) Provide an opportunity for public hearing.
        (b) Application contents. A State or Tribal application must 
    include:
        (1) A transmittal letter from the State Governor or Tribal 
    Chairperson (or equivalent official) requesting program authorization.
        (2) A program summary that will be published in the Federal 
    Register by EPA to provide notice to residents of the State or Tribe 
    that EPA will review the application.
        (3) A description of the program in accordance with Sec. 745.346.
        (4) An Attorney General's or Tribal Counsel's (or equivalent) 
    statement in accordance with Sec. 745.347.
        (5) A statement which identifies resources the State or Tribe 
    intends to devote to the administration of its compliance and 
    enforcement program.
        (6) A statement agreeing to submit to EPA the Summary on Progress 
    and Performance of lead-based paint compliance and enforcement 
    activities as described at Sec. 745.355(b)(2).
        (7) Copies of all applicable State and Tribal statutes, 
    regulations, standards, and other materials that provide the State or 
    Indian Tribe with the authority to administer and enforce a lead-based 
    paint debris management and disposal program.
        (c) Public comment on applications. After receipt of a State or 
    Tribal application, EPA will publish a Federal Register notice 
    containing:
        (1) An announcement of the receipt of the application.
        (2) The program summary provided by the State or Tribe in 
    accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
        (3) A request for public comments to be mailed to the appropriate 
    EPA Regional Office. The comment period will last at least 45 days. EPA 
    will consider public comments during its review of the application.
        (d) Public hearing. EPA will, if requested, conduct a public 
    hearing in the State or Indian Country of the Tribe seeking program 
    authorization and will consider all comments submitted at that hearing 
    during its review of the State or Tribal application.
    
    
    Sec. 745.346   State or Tribal Program Description
    
        A State or Tribe applying to administer and enforce a program under 
    this subpart must submit a description of its program. The State or 
    Tribal program description must include the following components:
        (a) Primary agency and contact. A designation of the agency or 
    agencies responsible for administering and enforcing the program and an 
    agency contact. This designation must be in accordance with the 
    specifications at Sec. 745.324(b)(1).
        (b) Program elements. A description of the program demonstrating 
    that it contains all of the elements specified in Sec. 745.350.
        (c) At least as protective as. An analysis of the State or Tribal 
    program that compares the program to the Federal provisions in 
    Secs. 745.307 through 745.319. This analysis must demonstrate how the 
    program is, in the State's or Indian Tribe's assessment, at least as 
    protective as the Federal provisions in this subpart. EPA will use the 
    analysis to evaluate the program in making its determination pursuant 
    to Sec. 745.354(a)(2)(i).
        (d) Adequate enforcement. A description of the State or Tribal 
    compliance and enforcement program demonstrating that the program 
    contains all of the enforcement requirements specified at Sec. 745.352. 
    This description must include copies of all policies, certifications, 
    plans, reports, and other materials that demonstrate that the State or 
    Tribal program contains all of the requirements specified at 
    Sec. 745.352.
        (e) Special requirements for tribal program descriptions. The 
    program description for an Indian Tribe must also include the 
    information and documents specified in Sec. 745.324(b)(4)(i) through 
    (b)(4)(iii).
    
    
    Sec. 745.347   State or Tribal Attorney General's statement.
    
        An application for program authorization by a State or Indian Tribe 
    must include a written statement signed by the Attorney General or 
    Tribal Counsel (or equivalent). The statement must include all 
    information and certifications as specified in Sec. 745.324(c)(1) 
    through (c)(3).
    
    
    Sec. 745.348   State program certification/interim approval.
    
        (a)(1) When submitting an application, a State may also certify to 
    EPA that the State program meets the requirements in Secs. 745.350 and 
    745.352 of this subpart.
        (2) If a State application contains this certification, the program 
    will be considered authorized until EPA disapproves the program or 
    withdraws the authorization. A program will not be considered 
    authorized to the extent that jurisdiction is asserted over Indian 
    Country, including non-member fee lands within an Indian reservation.
        (3) If the application does not contain such certification, the 
    State program will be authorized only after EPA approves it in 
    accordance with Sec. 745.354.
        (4) This certification must be contained in a letter from the 
    Governor or the Attorney General to the EPA.
        (5) The certification must reference the analyses required in 
    Sec. 745.346(d) as the basis for concluding that the State program is 
    at least as protective as the Federal program and provides adequate 
    enforcement.
        (b) [Reserved]
    
    
    Sec. 745.350   State or Tribal programs: required program elements.
    
        To receive authorization from EPA, a State or Tribal program must 
    contain at least the following program elements for lead-based paint 
    debris management and disposal activities:
        (a) Requirements for reuse and storage. The State or Tribe must 
    have requirements for the reuse and storage of lead-based paint debris 
    including but not limited to:
        (1) Standards that prevent reuse of hazardous lead-based paint 
    debris.
        (2) Standards that limit access to and prevent dispersal of lead-
    based paint debris which is being stored.
        (b) Requirements for transportation. The State or Tribe must have 
    requirements for the transportation of lead-based paint debris 
    including but not limited to measures to prevent the release of dust or 
    paint chips from lead-based paint debris while it is being transported. 
    Requirements for disposal or reclamation. The State or Tribe must have 
    requirements for the disposal or reclamation of lead-based paint debris 
    including but not limited to:
        (1) Clear standards identifying disposal facilities which may 
    safely accept lead-based paint debris. These standards must reference 
    any State or Federal regulations which govern the disposal facilities.
        (2) Clear standards identifying reclamation facilities which may 
    safely accept lead-based paint debris. These standards must reference 
    any State or Federal regulations which govern the reclamation 
    facilities.
        (c) Notification and recordkeeping. The State or Tribe must have 
    notification and recordkeeping standards which at a minimum include the 
    requirements found at Sec. 745.313 or their functional equivalent.
    
    [[Page 70232]]
    
    Sec. 745.352   State or Tribal compliance and enforcement.
    
        (a) Compliance and enforcement program elements. For the compliance 
    and enforcement portion of a State or Tribal program to be considered 
    adequate, a State or Indian Tribal application must demonstrate the 
    following elements:
        (1) Authority to enter. State or Tribal officials must be able to 
    enter premises or facilities where lead-based paint debris management 
    or disposal violations may occur. A State or Tribe must be able to 
    subpoena any person who has possession of records or reports pertaining 
    to lead-based paint debris to produce such documents; in addition, a 
    State or Tribe must be able to compel the appearance of any person to 
    testify concerning any matter relating to lead-based paint debris. A 
    State or Tribe must also designate a judicial body that will have the 
    authority to hold any person in contempt who fails or refuses to obey 
    such a duly issued subpoena. A State or Indian Tribe should have the 
    authority to seek a warrant if it is denied access to inspect any place 
    or vehicle where lead-based paint is being generated or stored.
        (i) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter and inspect 
    premises, facilities, or vehicles where lead-based paint debris is 
    generated or transported.
        (ii) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter and inspect 
    disposal and reclamation facilities.
        (iii) State or Tribal officials must have authority to take samples 
    and review records as part of the inspection process.
        (2) Flexible remedies. A State or Tribal compliance and enforcement 
    program must provide for a diverse and flexible array of enforcement 
    remedies. At a minimum, the program must authorize the remedies 
    specified at Sec. 745.327(b)(3). Indian Tribes are not required to 
    exercise criminal enforcement jurisdiction as a condition for program 
    authorization.
        (3) Training. A State or Tribal compliance and enforcement program 
    must include a process for training enforcement and inspection 
    personnel. The training must include case development procedures, 
    proper case files, and methods of conducting inspections and gathering 
    evidence.
        (4) Compliance assistance. A State or Tribal compliance and 
    enforcement program must provide compliance assistance to the public 
    and the regulated community to facilitate awareness and understanding 
    of and compliance with State or Tribal requirements governing lead-
    based paint debris management and disposal activities.
        (5) Sampling techniques. A State or Tribal application for program 
    approval must show that the State or Indian Tribe is technologically 
    capable of conducting a lead-based paint debris management and disposal 
    compliance and enforcement program. The State or Tribal program must 
    have access to the facilities and equipment necessary to perform 
    sampling and laboratory analysis as needed. This laboratory facility 
    must be a recognized laboratory as defined at 40 CFR 745.223, or the 
    State or Tribal program must implement a quality assurance program that 
    ensures appropriate quality of laboratory personnel and protects the 
    integrity of analytical data.
        (6) Tracking tips and complaints. A State or Tribal compliance and 
    enforcement program must include a process for reacting to tips and 
    complaints or other information indicating a violation.
        (7) Targeting inspections. A State or Tribal compliance and 
    enforcement program must demonstrate the ability to target inspections 
    to ensure compliance with the lead-based paint debris management and 
    disposal program requirements. A State or Tribe should have the ability 
    to conduct consensual inspections in places where records or reports 
    are stored, but where no lead debris is present. Such consensual 
    inspections should include the authority of State or Tribal officials 
    to physically appear at such places or to issue a consensual 
    Information Request Letter to gather records or reports on lead debris.
        (8) Follow up to inspection reports. A State or Tribal compliance 
    and enforcement program must demonstrate the ability to reasonably, and 
    in a timely manner, process and follow-up on inspection reports and 
    other information generated through enforcement-related activities. The 
    State or Tribal program must be in a position to ensure correction of 
    violations and, as appropriate, effectively develop and issue 
    enforcement remedies/responses to follow up on the identification of 
    violations.
        (9) Compliance monitoring and enforcement. A State or Tribal 
    compliance and enforcement program must demonstrate in its application 
    for approval that it is in a position to implement a compliance 
    monitoring and enforcement program. Such a program must ensure 
    correction of violations, and encompass either planned and/or 
    responsive inspections and development/issuance of State or Tribal 
    enforcement responses which are appropriate to the violations.
        (b) Memorandum of Agreement. An Indian Tribe which obtains program 
    approval must establish a Memorandum of Agreement with the appropriate 
    Regional Administrator. The Memorandum of Agreement must meet the 
    requirements at Sec. 745.327(e).
    
    
    Sec. 745.354   EPA review of State or Tribal program applications.
    
        (a) EPA approval.
        (1) EPA will fully review and consider all portions of a State or 
    Tribal application.
        (2) Within 180 days of receipt of a complete State or Tribal 
    application containing all elements specified in this subpart, EPA must 
    authorize the program or disapprove the application. EPA will authorize 
    the program only if it finds that:
        (i) The State or Tribal program is at least as protective of human 
    health and the environment as the corresponding Federal provisions at 
    Secs. 745.307 through 745.319.
        (ii) The State or Tribal program provides adequate enforcement.
        (3) EPA will notify the State or Tribe in writing of its decision 
    to authorize or disapprove the State or Tribal application.
        (4) Upon authorization of a State or Tribal program pursuant to 
    this subpart, it will be an unlawful act under sections 15 and 409 of 
    TSCA for any person to fail or refuse to comply with any requirements 
    of such program.
        (b) [Reserved]
    
    
    Sec. 745.355   Oversight and reporting requirements.
    
        (a) Oversight. EPA will periodically evaluate the adequacy of a 
    State or Indian Tribe's implementation and enforcement of its 
    authorized program.
        (b) Reports. Beginning 12 months after the date of program 
    authorization, the primary agency for each State or Indian Tribe must 
    submit a written report to the EPA Regional Administrator for the 
    Region in which the State or Indian Tribe is located. The report must 
    be submitted at least once every 12 months for the first 3 years after 
    program approval. If these reports demonstrate successful program 
    implementation, the Agency will extend the reporting interval to every 
    2 years. If the subsequent reports demonstrate problems with 
    implementation, EPA will require a return to annual reporting until the 
    reports demonstrate successful program implementation. The report must 
    include the following information:
        (1) Any significant changes in the content, administration, or 
    enforcement
    
    [[Page 70233]]
    
    of the State or Tribal program implemented since the previous reporting 
    period.
        (2) A Summary on Progress and Performance which summarizes the 
    results of implementing the State or Tribal lead-based paint debris 
    management and disposal compliance and enforcement program, including a 
    summary of the scope of the regulated community within the State or 
    Indian Tribe, the inspections conducted, enforcement actions taken, 
    compliance assistance provided, and the level of resources committed by 
    the State or Indian Tribe to these activities.
    
    
    Sec. 745.356   Withdrawal of State or Tribal Program authorization.
    
        (a) Withdrawal of authorization. (1) If EPA concludes that a State 
    or Tribe is not administering or enforcing an authorized program in 
    compliance with the standards, regulations, and other requirements of 
    Title IV of TSCA and this part, EPA will notify the primary agency for 
    the State or Tribe in writing and indicate EPA's intent to withdraw 
    authorization of the program.
        (2) The Notice of Intent to Withdraw Authorization will comply with 
    the specifications at Sec. 745.324(i)(2).
        (3) Any actions taken by EPA related to withdrawal of State or 
    Tribal program authorization will follow the procedures specified at 
    Sec. 745.324(i)(3) through (i)(7).
        (4) If EPA issues an order withdrawing the authorization of a State 
    or Tribal program, EPA will establish and enforce the provisions at 
    Secs. 745.307 through 745.319 as the Federal program for that State or 
    Indian Country. The Federal program will be established and enforced as 
    of the effective date of the order withdrawing authorization of the 
    State or Tribal program.
        (b) [Reserved]
    
    
    Sec. 745.358   Overfiling.
    
        (a) Failure to impose adequate penalty. If EPA finds that a 
    violator of a State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint debris management 
    and disposal program approved under this subpart has not been 
    adequately penalized, EPA will notify the State or Indian Tribe of this 
    finding. If EPA finds that the penalty against the violator has not 
    been adjusted appropriately within 30 days after such notice, EPA may 
    issue an appropriate administrative penalty order against the violator.
        (b) Failure to penalize. If upon receipt of any complaint or 
    information alleging or indicating a significant violation, a State or 
    Tribal Program has not commenced appropriate enforcement action, EPA 
    may act upon the complaint or information by instituting an appropriate 
    action order against the violator.
    
    
    Sec. 745.359   Effective dates.
    
        States and Indian Tribes may seek authorization to administer and 
    enforce a lead-based paint debris management and disposal program under 
    this subpart effective on [insert date 60 days after date of 
    publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].
    [FR Doc. 98-33326 Filed 12-17-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
12/18/1998
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
98-33326
Dates:
Written comments in response to this proposed rule must bereceived on or before February 16, 1999. The Agency is having two public meetings, where oral comments will be heard, one in Washington DC on Thursday, January 14, 1999, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and one in San Francisco, CA on Thursday, January 21, 1999, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Pages:
70190-70233 (44 pages)
Docket Numbers:
OPPTS-62160, FRL-5784-3
RINs:
2070-AC72: Lead; Management and Disposal of Lead-Based Paint Debris
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2070-AC72/lead-management-and-disposal-of-lead-based-paint-debris
PDF File:
98-33326.pdf
CFR: (33)
40 CFR 745.355(b)(2)
40 CFR 745.311(b)
40 CFR 745.305(b)
40 CFR 745.346(d)
40 CFR 745.324(i)(3)
More ...