Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0017-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-02-11T05:00Z

ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
OF
EPA'S
FINAL
RULE
AMENDING
40
CFR
PART
257
AND
258
CRITERIA
FOR
CLASSIFICATION
OF
SOLID
WASTE
DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
AND
PRACTICES
AND
CRITERIA
FOR
MUNICIPAL
SOLID
WASTE
LANDFILLS:
DISPOSAL
OF
RESIDENTIAL
LEADBASED
PAINT
WASTE
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
Economics,
Exposure
and
Technology
Division
Economic
and
Policy
Analysis
Branch
January
8,
2002
Final
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This
report
was
prepared
by
Timothy
Lehman
of
the
Economic
and
Policy
Analysis
Branch,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics.
Technical
assistance
during
draft
preparation
was
provided
by
Eastern
Research
Group,
Inc.
of
Lexington,
Massachusetts
under
EPA
Contract
68­
W6­
0022
and
68­
W­
99­
085.
ii
Table
of
Contents
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
ES.
1
Purpose
of
the
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
ES.
2
Justification
for
the
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
ES.
3
Economic
Impacts
of
the
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
ES.
4
Benefits
of
the
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
2
ES.
5
Other
Impacts
of
the
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
2
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.1
Description
of
the
Final
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.2
Rule
Justification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.3
Rule
Implementation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
1.4
Entities
Subject
to
the
Final
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
1.5
Types
of
LBP
Waste
Being
Regulated
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
1.6
Deregulatory
Nature
of
the
Final
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1.7
Overview
of
the
Economic
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
MARKET
PROFILE
OF
AFFECTED
SECTORS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
2.1
LBP
Abatement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
2.1.1
Determinants
of
Residential
Abatement
Levels
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
2.1.2
Baseline
Number
of
Abatements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
2.1.3
Estimated
Quantities
of
Residential
Abatement
Waste
Generated
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
2.1.4
Affected
Entities
and
Employees
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
2.2
Renovation
and
Remodeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
2.2.1
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities
Generating
Residential
LBP
waste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
2.2.2
Potential
Overlap
Between
Renovation
and
Remodeling
and
Abatement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
2.2.3
Baseline
Number
of
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities
.
.
.
.
14
2.2.4
Estimated
Quantities
of
Annual
Residential
R&
R
Waste
Generated
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
2.2.5
Affected
Entities
and
Employees
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
2.3
Residential
LBP
Waste
Transportation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
2.4
Residential
LBP
Waste
Disposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
2.4.1
Availability
of
C&
D
Landfill
Capacity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
2.4.2
Availability
of
MSW
Landfill
Capacity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
2.5
State
and
Territorial
Governments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
DESCRIPTION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
iii
3.1
Regulatory
Background
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
3.2
Justification
for
the
Final
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
COST
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
4.1
Cost
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Transportation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
4.2
Cost
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Disposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
4.2.1
Disposal
to
MSW
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
4.2.2
Disposal
to
C&
D
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
4.3
Residential
LBP
Waste
Transport
and
Disposal
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
4.4
Costs
to
States
and
Territories
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
BENEFITS
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
IMPACTS
OF
THE
ACTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
6.1
Summary
of
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
6.2
Small
Entity
Impact
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
6.4
Unfunded
Mandates
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
6.5
Environmental
Justice
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
6.6
Children's
Health
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
CONCLUSIONS
AND
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
REFERENCES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
iv
List
of
Tables
Table
No.
Page
2­
1
Recent
Abatement
Activity
for
Selected
States
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2­
2
National
Annual
LBP
Abatement
Activity
Estimates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
2­
3
Distribution
of
Abatements
by
Type
of
Housing
Unit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
2­
4
Amount
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Generated
per
Abatement
Activity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
2­
5
Baseline
Estimates
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Generated
by
Abatement
Activity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
2­
6
Number
of
Establishments
and
Employment
in
Industries
That
May
Perform
LBP
Abatement
Work
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
2­
7
Derivation
of
Baseline
Number
of
R&
R
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
2­
8
Baseline
Annual
Estimates
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Generated
from
R&
R
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
2­
9
Estimates
of
the
Number
of
Residential
Construction
and
Remodeling
Establishments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
2­
10
Number
of
Establishments
and
Employment
in
Industries
That
May
Haul
Residential
LBP
Waste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
2­
11
Estimated
Number
of
C&
D
Landfills
and
MSWLFs,
by
State
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
2­
12
Distribution
of
States
by
Number
of
C&
D
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
2­
13
Distribution
of
States
by
Remaining
MSW
Landfill
Capacity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
2­
14
States
Reporting
Less
Than
Ten
Years
of
Remaining
MSW
Disposal
Capacity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
4­
1
Haul
Distance
and
Transportation
Cost
for
Residential
LBP
Waste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
4­
2
Tip
Fees
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
4­
3
Tip
Fees
for
Construction
and
Demolition
Landfills
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
4­
4
Transportation
and
Disposal
Cost
for
Residential
LBP
Waste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
v
List
of
Tables
(
cont.)

4­
5
Regional
Differences
in
the
Cost
of
Disposal
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
from
Abatement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
4­
6
Regional
Distribution
of
Housing
Units
With
LBP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
4­
7
Comparative
Costs
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Management
in
C&
D
landfills
and
MSWLFs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
4­
8
Estimated
Potential
Savings
From
the
Final
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
4­
9
Costs
to
States
and
Territories
of
Adopting
the
Final
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
5­
1
Summary
of
Benefit
Estimates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
vi
List
of
Figures
Figure
No.
Page
Figure
2­
1
Definition
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
Figure
2­
2
Lead
hazard
reduction
activities
initiated
by
the
Lead­
Based
Paint
Hazard
Reduction
Act
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
ES­
1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES.
1
Purpose
of
the
Action
This
document
presents
EPA's
analysis
of
the
economic
impacts
of
a
Final
Rule
being
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
rule
amends
two
sections
of
the
RCRA
Subtitle
D
standards,
40
CFR
257.2
and
258.2,
by
amending
the
definition
of
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(
MSWLF)
unit,
and
by
adding
definitions
for
construction
and
demolition
(
C&
D)
landfill
and
residential
lead­
based
paint
(
LBP)
waste.
LBP
waste
includes
waste
from
residential
abatement,
rehabilitation,
and
renovation
and
remodeling
activities.

ES.
2
Justification
for
the
Action
This
rule
addresses
a
consequence
of
a
July
31,
2000
policy
statement
by
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
that
interpreted
residential
LBP
waste
as
a
household
waste
under
40
CFR
Part
261.4(
b)(
1).
By
defining
residential
LBP
waste
as
a
household
waste,
the
July
policy
statement
meant
that
such
waste
was
no
longer
subject
to
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
disposal
requirements
and
could
be
disposed
of
in
MSWLFs
and
municipal
solid
waste
combustors
according
to
State
and
local
requirements.
However,
under
40
CFR
Part
258.2,
a
C&
D
landfill
that
receives
residential
LBP
waste
could
be
deemed
to
be
receiving
household
waste
and
may
need
to
comply
with
EPA's
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfill
Criteria
found
in
40
CFR
part
258.
The
Final
Rule
will
expressly
allow
C&
D
landfills
to
receive
residential
LBP
waste
without
becoming
subject
to
the
requirements
for
a
MSWLF
in
part
258.

ES.
3
Economic
Impacts
of
the
Action
The
Final
Rule
will
impose
no
additional
costs
but
may
result
in
cost
savings
and
incremental
public
health
benefits.
The
action
authorizes
the
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
C&
D
landfills,
where
previously
under
the
July
2000
policy
statement,
disposal
was
authorized
only
in
MSWLFs.
As
a
result,
EPA
believes
that,
in
those
parts
of
the
country
where
it
is
cheaper
to
transport
and
dispose
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
C&
D
landfills
compared
to
MSWLFs,
some
residential
LBP
waste
will
be
diverted
from
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills.
Where
this
occurs,
generators
will
benefit
from
lower
waste
management
and
disposal
costs.
Residential
LBP
waste
transporters
will
continue
to
transport
residential
LBP
waste
for
disposal,
except
disposal
will
take
place
at
C&
D
landfills,
as
opposed
to
MSWLFs.
Some
MSWLF
operators
will
experience
a
reduction
in
demand
for
disposal
services,
which
will
be
offset
by
an
increase
in
demand
for
disposal
services
at
C&
D
landfills.

For
this
analysis,
EPA
assumes
that
only
residential
LBP
waste
generators
in
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South
regions
would
potentially
shift
from
disposal
in
MSWLFs
to
disposal
in
C&
D
landfills,
based
on
an
analysis
of
the
relative
costs
of
MSW
and
C&
D
disposal
by
region.
ES­
2
EPA
further
assumes
that
the
percentage
of
residential
LBP
waste
that
would
be
potentially
affected
is
proportional
to
the
share
of
these
three
regions
in
the
number
of
housing
units
with
LBP,
which
is
84.4
percent.
Under
these
assumptions,
up
to
an
estimated
0.87
million
tons
of
residential
LBP
waste
will
be
diverted
from
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills
annually.
This
represents
up
to
0.73
percent
of
the
total
volume
of
waste
disposed
of
in
MSWLFs
annually.
This
shift
in
disposal
would
save
residential
LBP
waste
generators
in
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South
regions
up
to
$
16.76
million
annually.
The
savings
accruing
to
generators
of
residential
LBP
waste
is
estimated
to
be
as
high
as
$
0.79
million
per
year,
while
the
savings
accruing
to
generators
of
residential
renovation
and
remodeling
(
R&
R)
LBP
waste
would
be
up
to
$
15.98
million
per
year.

ES.
4
Benefits
of
the
Action
The
Final
Rule
may
result
in
savings
in
residential
LBP
waste
disposal
costs
in
regions
of
the
country
where
the
total
cost
of
transporting
and
disposing
of
residential
LBP
waste
is
lower
for
C&
D
landfills
versus
MSWLFs.
EPA
estimates
that
up
to
$
0.79
million
in
savings
will
accrue
to
generators
of
residential
LBP
abatement
waste.
Of
this,
an
estimated
39.7
percent,
or
up
to
$
0.31
million,
will
be
generated
annually
in
the
public
housing
sector.
EPA
assumes
that
in
the
public
sector,
any
savings
in
residential
LBP
waste
management
and
disposal
costs
will
be
used
to
conduct
additional
LBP
abatements.
Given
an
average
cost
for
LBP
abatement
in
public
housing
units
of
$
3,650,
the
$
0.31
million
in
annual
savings
would
fund
as
many
as
86
additional
abatements
each
year.
The
result
of
this
will
be
an
acceleration
in
the
elimination
of
LBP
hazards
and
a
reduction
in
the
exposure
of
sensitive
populations,
particularly
children,
to
the
hazards
of
LBP.
These
hazards
include
decreased
intelligence
(
lower
IQ),
behavioral
problems,
reduced
physical
stature
and
growth,
and
impaired
hearing
(
Task
Force
2000).

ES.
5
Other
Impacts
of
the
Action
EPA
has
analyzed
the
potential
impacts
of
this
action
on
small
entities,
unfunded
mandates,
environmental
justice,
and
children's
health,
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
various
executive
orders
and
statutes.
Given
the
deregulatory
nature
of
the
action
and
the
overall
savings
estimated
for
the
action,
EPA
finds
there
are
no
adverse
impacts.
1
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Description
of
the
Final
Rule
This
document
presents
EPA's
analysis
of
the
economic
impacts
of
a
Final
Rule
being
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
rule
amends
two
sections
of
the
RCRA
Subtitle
D
standards,
40
CFR
257.2
and
258.2,
by
amending
the
definition
of
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(
MSWLF)
unit,
and
by
adding
definitions
for
construction
and
demolition
(
C&
D)
landfill
and
residential
lead­
based
paint
waste.
Specifically,
this
rule:

Amends
the
definition
of
MSWLF
unit
in
4
0
CFR
257.2
and
258.2
by
adding
a
statement
at
the
end
of
the
definition.
The
amended
definition
will
thus
read:

Adds
the
definition
of
construction
and
demolition
(
C&
D)
landfill
as
follows:

Adds
the
definition
of
residential
lead­
based
paint
waste
as
follows:
"
Municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(
MSWLF)
unit
means
a
discrete
area
of
land
or
an
excavation
that
receives
household
waste,
and
that
is
not
a
land
application
unit,
surface
impoundment,
injection
well,
or
waste
pile,
as
those
terms
are
defined
under
§
257.2.
A
MSWLF
unit
also
may
receive
other
types
of
RCRA
Subtitle
D
wastes,
such
as
commercial
solid
waste,
nonhazardous
sludge,
and
industrial
solid
waste.
Such
a
landfill
may
be
publicly
or
privately
owned.
A
MSWLF
unit
may
be
a
new
MSWLF
unit,
an
existing
MSWLF
unit
or
a
lateral
expansion.
A
construction
and
demolition
landfill
that
receives
residential
lead­
based
paint
waste
and
does
not
receive
any
other
household
waste
is
not
a
MSWLF
unit."

"
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
receives
construction
and
demolition
waste
and
does
not
receive
hazardous
waste
(
defined
in
§
261.3
of
the
rule)
or
industrial
solid
waste
(
defined
in
§
258.2
of
the
rule).
Conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
waste
(
defined
in
Sec.
261.5
of
the
rule)
may
be
received
at
a
C&
D
landfill
that
meets
the
requirements
of
part
257,
Subpart
B.
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."

"
Residential
lead­
based
paint
waste
means
waste
containing
lead­
based
paint,
which
is
generated
as
a
result
of
activities
such
as
abatement,
rehabilitation,
renovation
and
remodeling
in
homes
and
other
residences.
The
term
residential
lead­
based
paint
waste
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
lead­
based
paint
debris,
chips,
dust,
and
sludges."
2
1.2
Rule
Justification
This
rule
addresses
a
consequence
of
a
July
31,
2000
policy
statement
by
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
that
interpreted
residential
LBP
waste
as
a
household
waste
under
40
CFR
Part
261.4(
b)(
1).
By
defining
residential
LBP
waste
as
a
household
waste,
the
July
policy
statement
meant
that
such
waste
was
no
longer
subject
to
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
disposal
requirements
and
could
be
disposed
of
in
MSWLFs
and
municipal
solid
waste
combustors
according
to
State
and
local
requirements.
However,
under
40
CFR
Part
258.2,
a
C&
D
landfill
that
receives
residential
LBP
waste
could
be
deemed
to
be
receiving
household
waste
and
may
need
to
comply
with
EPA's
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfill
Criteria
found
in
40
CFR
part
258.
This
rule
is
designed
to
expressly
allow
C&
D
landfills
to
receive
residential
LBP
waste
without
becoming
subject
to
the
requirements
for
a
MSWLF
in
part
258.

1.3
Rule
Implementation
The
Part
257
and
258
regulations
being
amended
by
the
Final
Rule
are
implemented
by
States
who
have
received
EPA
approval
of
their
RCRA
Subtitle
D
programs.
Before
the
amendment
can
be
implemented,
therefore,
it
may
be
necessary
for
States
and
territories
themselves
to
promulgate
a
rule
or
similar
action
to
amend
their
Subtitle
D
permitting
program.
As
of
March
1,
2000,
49
States
and
territories
had
received
approval
of
their
Subtitle
D
programs.

1.4
Entities
Subject
to
the
Final
Rule
Those
entities
affected
by
this
action
include
industries
involved
in
LBP
abatement
activities,
residential
renovation
and
remodeling
activities,
and
those
involved
in
residential
LBP
waste
transportation
and
disposal.

1.5
Types
of
LBP
Waste
Being
Regulated
The
Final
Rule
will
apply
to
all
residential
LBP
waste,
regardless
of
amount
generated.
Residential
LBP
waste
is
further
defined
in
Chapter
Two,
and
includes
LBP
debris,
as
well
as
LBP
paint
chips,
dust,
and
sludges.
The
use
of
the
term
residential
LBP
waste
indicates
the
action
applies
to
waste
generated
as
a
result
of
lead­
based
paint
activities
(
including
abatement,
rehabilitation,
renovation,
and
remodeling)
in
homes
and
other
residences.
Not
included
in
this
definition
are
residential
LBP
demolition
wastes
and
LBP
wastes
from
nonresidential
structures
such
as
public
and
commercial
buildings,
warehouses,
bridges,
water
towers,
and
transmission
towers.
These
wastes
remain
subject
to
RCRA
hazardous
waste
management
requirements
if
the
generator
determines
that
they
are
hazardous.
3
1.6
Deregulatory
Nature
of
the
Final
Rule
The
Final
Rule
will
ensure
that
residential
LBP
waste
safely
disposed
of
in
either
C&
D
landfills
or
MSWLFs.
Because
this
action
results
in
a
wider
range
of
disposal
options
for
States
to
provide
to
residential
LBP
waste
generators,
thus
lowering
residential
LBP
waste
disposal
costs,
it
is
considered
deregulatory
in
nature.

1.7
Overview
of
the
Economic
Analysis
This
Economic
Analysis
(
EA)
analyzes
the
costs
and
benefits
and
other
impacts
associated
with
the
Final
Rule.
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
EO
12866),
EPA
is
required
to
determine
whether
any
rule
constitutes
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
defined
by
section
3(
f)(
1)
of
EO
12866.
In
order
to
make
this
determination,
EPA
has
prepared
this
economic
analysis
to
assess
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
rule.

The
Final
Rule
amends
the
definition
of
MSWLF
unit
in
40
CFR
257.2
and
258.2
by
inserting
at
the
end
of
the
definition,
the
sentence,
"
A
construction
and
demolition
landfill
that
receives
residential
lead­
based
paint
waste
and
does
not
receive
any
other
household
waste
is
not
a
MSWLF
unit."
The
amendment,
as
shown
in
this
EA,
would
reduce
the
costs
associated
with
residential
LBP
waste
management
and
disposal,
as
it
allows
a
wider
range
of
disposal
options
and
avoids
compliance
costs
for
C&
D
landfills
that
would
otherwise
either
have
to
comply
with
Part
258
criteria
or
refuse
to
accept
residential
LBP
waste.
By
reducing
the
costs
of
managing
and
disposing
of
residential
LBP
waste,
EPA
expects
the
rule
to
increase
the
number
of
housing
units
with
LBP
to
be
abated.
Thus,
the
rule
will
have
the
effect
of
accelerating
the
rate
at
which
LBP
hazards
are
eliminated,
thereby
reducing
the
number
of
children
exposed
to
such
hazards.

The
EA
contains
8
chapters.
The
outline
of
the
EA
is
as
follows:

#
Chapter
Two
presents
a
market
profile
of
the
industries
affected
by
the
Final
Rule.

#
Chapter
Three
describes
the
regulatory
action
and
EPA's
justification
for
this
action
#
Chapter
Four
contains
data
on
the
present
costs
of
residential
LBP
waste
management
and
disposal
and
the
costs
under
the
Final
Rule.

#
Chapter
Five
discusses
the
benefits
of
the
Final
Rule.

#
Chapter
Six
assesses
the
economic
impacts
of
this
action
#
Chapter
Seven
summarizes
the
EA
and
presents
some
conclusions
4
#
Chapter
Eight
contains
a
list
of
cited
references
1
Deleading,
a
related
term,
refers
to
actions
taken
to
eliminate
lead­
based
paint
or
lead­
based
paint
hazards
or
to
plan
such
activities
in
non­
residential
public
or
commercial
buildings.

5
CHAPTER
TWO
MARKET
PROFILE
OF
AFFECTED
SECTORS
The
Final
Rule
will
affect
a
number
of
industry
sectors,
including
contractors
involved
in
LBP
abatement
activities,
renovators
and
remodelers
that
generate
residential
LBP
waste,
waste
transporters,
and
waste
disposal
facility
operators.
This
chapter
examines
the
size
and
other
characteristics
of
industries
that
may
be
potentially
affected
by
the
rule.
As
part
of
this
profile,
we
present
estimates
of
the
baseline
level
of
abatement
and
R&
R
activities
covered
by
the
action.
The
first
two
sections
present
the
baseline
information
for
abatement
(
Section
2.1),
and
renovation
and
remodeling
(
Section
2.2)
activities.
Sections
2.3
and
2.4
profile
the
affected
waste
transport
and
waste
disposal
sectors.

2.1
LBP
Abatement
A
variety
of
federal,
state,
and
local
legislation
encourages
or
requires
owners
of
buildings
to
abate
the
hazards
of
LBP,
particularly
in
residential
settings.
Abatement
has
been
defined
as
any
measure,
or
set
of
measures,
designed
to
permanently
eliminate
LBP
hazards.
1
Since
federal
and
state
legislative
and
policy
initiatives
largely
determine
the
level
and
nature
of
abatement
activity,
this
section
first
describes
current
estimates
of
the
number
of
abatement
projects
undertaken
annually
in
housing,
and
then
characterizes
the
industries
involved
in
abatement
activities.

Residential
Lead­
Based
Paint
Waste
(
LBP
Waste)
is
defined
as:
waste
generated
as
a
result
of
lead­
based
paint
activities
(
including
abatement,
rehabilitation,
renovation,
and
remodeling)
in
homes
and
other
residences.
The
term
residential
lead­
based
paint
waste
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
lead­
based
paint
debris,
chips,
dust,
and
sludges.

Figure
2­
1.
Definition
of
Residential
LBP
Waste.
Source:
Final
Rule
6
Congress
Lead­
Based
Paint
Hazard
Reduction
Act
HUD
Title
X
of
the
Housing
and
Community
Act
of
1992
EPA
Adds
Title
IV,
Lead
Exposure
Reduction,
to
TSCA
§
402(
a)
 
Certification
and
training
of
individuals
engaged
in
LBP
abatement
activities
S
Standards
for
conducting
LBP
activities
S
Accreditation
of
LBP
training
programs
§
402(
c)
 
Guidelines
for
conducting
renovation
and
remodeling
activities
S
Application
of
402(
a)
provisions
to
R&
R
activities
creating
LBP
hazards
§
403
 
Identification
and
disclosure
of
LBP
hazards
§
404
 
Model
state
program
S
EPA
authorization
of
state
programs
§
406
 
Disclosure
to
homeowners
and
customers
of
renovation
and
remodeling
projects
§
1018
 
Lead
disclosure
upon
transfer
of
residential
property
Figure
2­
2.
Lead
hazard
reduction
activities
initiated
by
the
Lead­
Based
Paint
Hazard
Reduction
Act.
2.1.1
Determinants
of
Residential
Abatement
Levels
Residential
lead
abatement
standards
have
largely
been
directed
by
the
evolving
policies
of
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
(
HUD)
and
other
federal
agencies.
Current
HUD
programs
are
administered
under
the
Lead­
Based
Paint
Hazard
Reduction
Act,
also
known
as
Title
X
of
the
Housing
and
Community
Act
of
1992.
Title
X
updates
many
regulations
affecting
abatement
activities,
particularly
by
adding
Title
IV,
Lead
Exposure
Reduction,
to
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA)
(
see
Figure
2­
2).
The
various
sections
of
Title
IV
set
policies
and
mandate
regulations
and
guidelines
for
safe
and
effective
LBP
exposure
reduction.
For
example,
TSCA
§
402(
a)
directs
EPA
to
promulgate
regulations
requiring
the
certification
of
individuals
engaged
in
LBP
activities
and
accreditation
of
training
programs
for
LBP
activities.
Further,
§
406
mandates
specific
disclosure
requirements
to
ensure
that
potential
homeowners
become
aware
of
LBP
hazards
prior
to
undertaking
renovation
and
remodeling
activities.
Title
IV
of
TSCA
also
requires
EPA
involvement
in
establishing
safe
and
effective
standards
for
performing
LBP
abatement
and
deleading
§
402(
a))
identifying
conditions
indicative
of
LBP
hazards
(
§
403),
preparing
a
model
state
regulatory
program
for
LBP
activities
(
§
404),
and
a
disclosure
rule
(
§
406)
for
homeowners
and
renovation
and
remodeling
customers.
Fully
implemented,
the
combined
efforts
of
HUD
and
EPA
will
establish
guidelines
and
programs
for
efficiently
and
safely
identifying,
removing,
and
controlling
LBP
hazards
in
residential
settings.

To
support
mitigation
of
LBP
hazards,
HUD
has
established
several
sources
of
funding
for
abatements
in
public
and
low­
income
private
housing.
The
HUD
funds
generally
finance
LBP
abatement
in
public
housing
units,
either
as
part
of
ongoing
modernization
activities
or
specifically
2
The
use
of
LBP
in
residential
applications
was
banned
in
1978,
and
prior
to
that
year
the
paint
industry
had
been
decreasing
the
quantity
of
lead
in
paint,
especially
interior
paint,
since
the
1950s
(
Dacquisto,
1996).
Although
anecdotal
evidence
exists
that
some
manufacturers
sold
LBP
out
of
inventories
after
1978,
and
that
some
paint
contractors
added
lead­
based
pigments
to
paint
on
their
own,
this
evidence
is
impossible
to
quantify
(
Marchaterre,
1996).

3
The
ten
States
are:
Connecticut,
Maine,
Massachusetts,
Minnesota,
Missouri,
New
Jersey,
Ohio,
Pennsylvania,
Rhode
Island,
and
Texas.

7
to
remove
LBP
sources
from
housing
units
inhabited
by
one
or
more
children
with
elevated
blood
lead
levels.
Although
HUD
has
published
a
comprehensive
plan
for
the
abatement
of
private
housing
units,
HUD
does
not
have
the
authority
to
mandate
abatements
in
most
privately
owned
structures.

In
addition
to
the
federal
goals
outlined
by
HUD,
the
activities
of
state
and
local
organizations
help
determine
regional
and
local
abatement
trends.
The
effectiveness
of
state
and
local
laws
depends
on
public
awareness
of
LBP
hazards
and
budget
restrictions
of
the
regulating
agencies.
As
a
result,
some
States,
such
as
Maryland
and
Massachusetts,
have
relatively
mature
lead
poisoning
prevention
programs
that
encourage
extensive
abatement
activity
in
both
public
and
private
housing
units,
while
other
States
only
have
emerging
or
no
abatement
programs.
Some
States
and
cities
have
encouraged
private
housing
abatements
by
providing
subsidies
or
tax
breaks
to
certain
housing
owners.
Summaries
of
State
abatement
legislation
are
provided
in
the
references
(
EPA
1996a
and
1996b;
FR
1990).

To
identify
the
housing
units
with
potential
LBP
hazards,
HUD
has
recommended
two
thresholds
for
defining
LBP:
(
a)
paint
with
a
lead
concentration
greater
than
0.5
percent
by
weight,
or
(
b)
painted
surfaces
having
lead
concentrations
equal
to
or
greater
than
1.0
mg/
cm2
(
HUD,
1990b).
The
actual
concentration
of
lead
in
paint
can
be
determined
using
several
testing
methods,
including
portable
x­
ray
fluorescence
(
XRF)
analyzers
and
atomic
absorption
spectrometry
(
AAS).
According
to
HUD,
the
severity
of
the
hazard
may
be
further
assessed
by
considering
the
condition
of
the
painted
surfaces,
the
age
of
the
house,
2
the
volume
of
lead
in
household
dust,
and
the
likelihood
of
children
under
the
age
of
seven
being
present.

2.1.2
Baseline
Number
of
Abatements
Baseline
LBP
abatement
activity
is
based
on
estimates
of
abatement
activity
in
ten
States
(
EPA
2000).
3
Data
for
1997­
1999
were
used
for
the
estimates,
since
the
data
were
most
consistent
among
the
States
for
these
three
years.
Due
to
the
exceptionally
high
abatement
rate
reported
in
Massachusetts
relative
to
the
other
nine
States,
estimates
were
developed
that
both
included
and
excluded
Massachusetts
data.
The
estimates
were
calculated
using
the
following
three
steps:
(
1)
the
number
of
abatements
per
State
for
each
of
the
three
years
were
summed;
(
2)
the
number
of
abatements
from
step
1
were
divided
by
the
number
of
pre­
1978
housing
units
for
the
States
included
in
the
summation
(
yielding
an
average
abatement
rate)
and
(
3)
the
abatement
rates
were
multiplied
by
the
national
housing
stock
of
pre­
1978
housing
units.
4
The
estimated
baseline
number
of
abatements,
22,209,
is
lower
than
the
estimate
of
126,374
found
in
EPA
1998.
The
primary
reason
for
this
discrepancy
is
that
the
estimate
in
EPA
1998
was
based
on
abatement
activity
from
Massachusetts
alone.
As
shown
above,
the
abatement
rate
in
Massachusetts
is
much
higher
than
other
States
(
0.19
percent
for
Massachusetts
alone
versus
an
average
of
0.01
percent
for
the
other
nine
States
studied).

8
The
calculations
outlined
above
yield
a
national
estimate
(
for
all
States)
of
22,209
abatements
in
1999,
which
represents
a
national
abatement
rate
of
0.03
percent
per
year.
4
If
Massachusetts
is
excluded
from
the
calculations,
the
abatement
rate
drops
to
0.01
percent
per
year,
resulting
in
an
estimate
of
9,139
abatements
for
1999.
Table
2­
1
shows
the
data
from
the
ten
States
surveyed.
The
number
of
abatements
was
divided
into
the
number
of
pre­
1978
housing
units
in
these
States
to
estimate
the
1999
abatement
rate,
which
is
based
on
all
ten
States,
including
Massachusetts.
This
rate,
0.03
percent
per
year,
was
extrapolated
to
the
nation
as
a
whole
based
on
the
number
of
pre­
1978
housing
units
nationwide
(
65.9
million),
as
shown
in
Table
2­
2.

Table
2­
1.
Recent
Abatement
Activity
for
Selected
States
State
Number
of
Abatements
Reported
1997
1998
1999
Connecticut
138
272
134
Massachusetts
4,999
4,447
3,946
Maine
N/
A
53
45
Minnesota
N/
A
N/
A
230
Missouri
N/
A
572
408
New
Jersey
258
283
242
Ohio
354
427
466
Pennsylvania
N/
A
N/
A
261
Rhode
Island
N/
A
138
111
Texas
221
359
453
Total,
Including
MA
data
5,970
6,551
6,296
Total,
Not
Including
MA
data
971
2,104
2,350
Source:
EPA
(
2000)
9
Table
2­
2.
National
Annual
LBP
Abatement
Activity
Estimates
(
2000
data)

State(
s)
Abatement
Rate
Number
of
Pre­
1978
Housing
Units
(
millions)
Number
of
Abatements
All
States
0.03%

65.9
22,209
All
States,
excluding
MA
0.01%
9,139
Only
MA
0.19%
149,784
Source:
EPA
2000;
HUD
2001.

Although
no
breakdown
of
abatements
by
type
of
housing
unit
(
e.
g.,
single­
family
versus
multifamily)
is
available,
this
can
be
estimated
based
on
the
share
of
each
housing
unit
type
in
the
total
population
of
housing
units
with
LBP,
using
the
most
recent
HUD
data.
Of
the
37.9
million
housing
units
with
LBP
anywhere,
89.9
percent
were
single­
family
units
and
10.1
percent
were
multifamily
units
(
HUD
2001).
Using
the
same
ratio,
we
estimate
the
baseline
number
of
abatements
in
single­
family
housing
units
at
19,973
and
the
baseline
number
of
abatements
in
multifamily
housing
units
at
2,236
(
see
Table
2­
3).

Table
2­
3.
Distribution
of
Abatements
by
Type
of
Housing
Unit
Type
of
Housing
Unit
Number
of
Housing
Units
with
LBP
(
000)
Percent
of
Total
Estimated
Annual
Number
of
Abatements
Single
family
34,081
89.9%
19,973
Multifamily
3,815
10.1%
2,236
TOTAL
37,896
100.0%
22,209
Source:
EPA
2000;
HUD
2001.

2.1.3
Estimated
Quantities
of
Residential
Abatement
Waste
Generated
Table
2­
4
shows
the
estimated
quantity
of
residential
LBP
waste
generated
per
abatement
activity
for
public
and
private
housing
units
(
both
single­
and
multifamily).
These
estimates
are
based
on
actual
waste
amounts
generated
from
abatements
performed
in
public
and
private
housing
units
(
EPA
1995b).
10
Table
2­
4.
Amount
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Generated
per
Abatement
Activity
Type
of
Structure
Average
Square
Footage
of
Structure
Amount
of
Residential
LBP
waste
Generated
per
Abatement
Volume
(
yd3)
Weight
(
tons)

Single­
family
housing
(
public)
1,065a
3.05b
1.66
Single­
family
housing
(
private)
1,775a
5.08d
2.77d
multifamilyc
1,255a
3.59d
1.96d
Sources:
a
EPA
1995b;
EPA
1998.
b
Based
on
waste
generation
in
public
housing
abatements
(
EPA
1995b)
c
Square
footage
and
waste
quantities
for
multifamily
structures
are
per
housing
unit.
d
Extrapolations
from
single­
family
public
housing
units
based
on
relative
square
footage
of
the
structures.

Since
HUD's
most
recent
analysis
of
lead
hazards
(
HUD
2001)
has
not
yet
published
estimates
of
the
distribution
of
housing
units
with
lead
hazards
by
private
and
public
ownership
status,
EPA
uses
the
following
residential
LBP
waste
generation
factors
in
this
analysis:

For
single­
family
housing
units,
the
average
of
the
residential
LBP
waste
generation
rate
for
public
and
private
single­
family
homes,
i.
e.,

(
1.66
+
2.77)
÷
2
=
2.22
tons
per
unit,
and
(
3.05
+
5.08)
÷
2
=
4.07
cubic
yards
per
unit.

For
multifamily
units,
1.96
tons
and
3.59
cubic
yards
per
abatement.

As
seen
in
Table
2­
5,
when
these
estimated
residential
LBP
waste
quantities
per
abatement
are
multiplied
by
the
baseline
number
of
abatements,
the
total
quantity
of
LBP
abatement
waste
being
generated
is
estimated
at
48,723
tons
(
89,317
cubic
yards).
For
purposes
of
cost
estimation
in
Chapter
Four,
we
also
calculate
the
weighted
average
quantity
of
residential
LBP
waste
generated,
which
is
obtained
by
dividing
the
total
tons
and
cubic
yards
by
22,209,
which
is
the
baseline
number
of
abatements.
For
all
abatements,
the
average
quantity
of
residential
LBP
waste
generated
is
estimated
at
2.19
tons
per
housing
unit.
5
The
Census
definition
for
this
industry
is
as
follows:

562910
Remediation
Services
 
This
industry
comprises
establishments
primarily
engaged
in
one
or
more
of
the
following:
(
1)
remediation
and
cleanup
of
contaminated
buildings,
mine
sites,
soil,
or
ground
water;
(
2)
integrated
mine
reclamation
activities,
including
demolition,
soil
remediation,
waste
water
treatment,
hazardous
material
removal,
contouring
land,
and
revegetation;
and
(
3)
asbestos,
lead
paint,
and
other
toxic
material
abatement.
Source:
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
naics/
NDEF562.
HTM
11
Table
2­
5.
Baseline
Estimates
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Generated
by
Abatement
Activities
(
annual)

Baseline
number
of
abatements
Single­
Family
Units
Multifamily
Units
All
Housing
Units
Number
of
abatements
19,973
2,236
22,209
Average
quantity
of
residential
LBP
waste
per
abatement
tons
2.22
1.96
­­

cubic
yards
4.07
3.59
­­

Baseline
residential
LBP
waste
generation
tons
44,340
4,383
48,723
cubic
yards
81,290
8,027
89,317
Weighted
average
residential
LBP
waste
generation
tons
­­
­­
2.19
cubic
yards
­­
­­
4.02
Sources:
EPA
2000;
EPA
1998.

2.1.4
Affected
Entities
and
Employees
Information
characterizing
the
LBP
abatement
industry
is
difficult
to
obtain
because
of
the
lack
of
any
uniform
contractor
licensing
or
registration
system
for
the
industry.
While
a
new
industry
code,
NAICS
56291
(
Remediation
Services)
5
captures
establishments
dedicated
to
LBP
abatement
activities,
it
is
likely
that
establishments
classified
in
NAICS
23
(
Construction)
also
perform
abatement
work,
either
in
the
course
of
normal
construction
and
remodeling
activities,
or
as
a
secondary
activity.
Table
2­
6
lists
1997
establishment
and
employment
data
for
the
five­
digit
NAICS
codes
that
may
include
potentially
affected
entities.
12
Table
2­
6
Number
of
Establishments
and
Employment
in
Industries
That
May
Perform
LBP
Abatement
Work
NAICS
Code
Description
Number
of
Establishments
Total
Number
of
Employees
Total
Number
of
Construction
Employees
Average
Number
of
Employees
per
Establishment
Average
Number
of
Construction
Employees
per
Establishment
23321
Single­
Family
Housing
Contractor
138,850
570,990
367,719
4.1
2.6
23322
Multifamily
Housing
Contractors
7,540
58,896
40,082
7.8
5.3
23332
Commercial
and
Institutional
Contractors
37,430
528,173
359,981
14.1
9.6
23521
Painting
and
Wallcovering
Contractors
37,480
195,331
160,740
5.2
4.3
23542
Drywall,
Plastering,

Acoustical,
and
Insulation
20,457
266,710
229,934
13.0
11.2
23551
Carpentry
Contractors
44,858
230,409
185,610
5.1
4.1
23552
Floor
Laying
&
Other
Floor
Contractors
12,078
60,533
42,663
5.0
3.5
23599
All
Other
Special
Trades
25,932
198,141
146,894
7.6
5.7
56291
Remediation
Services
1,677
40,994
NA
24.4
NA
Totals
326,302
2,150,177
1,533,623
6.6
4.7
Note:
the
number
of
establishments
that
perform
residential
LBP
abatement
in
these
industries
is
unknown.

Source:
Census
2000a.
13
The
industries
that
may
include
establishments
performing
LBP
abatement
work
encompass
326,302
establishments,
and
these
establishments
employ
a
total
of
2.15
million
workers.
The
overall
average
number
of
employees
per
establishment
is
6.6.

2.2
Renovation
and
Remodeling
This
section
focuses
on
the
renovation
and
remodeling
(
R&
R)
industry
and
specifically
on
R&
R
activities
that
have
the
potential
to
generate
residential
LBP
waste.
The
focus
of
the
Final
Rule
is
on
residential
R&
R
activities,
so
this
section
will
only
provide
estimates
for
residential
R&
R
activities
and
will
exclude
nonresidential
R&
R
activities.

2.2.1
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities
Generating
Residential
LBP
waste
Depending
on
the
nature
of
the
project,
some
R&
R
projects
undertaken
may
disturb
LBP
or
otherwise
generate
residential
LBP
waste.
For
this
analysis
the
following
categories
of
residential
R&
R
activities
are
assumed
to
have
such
potential:

 
Construction
of
additions
 
Kitchen
remodeling
or
addition
 
Bathroom
remodeling
or
addition
 
Window
replacement
These
activities
were
selected
because
of
the
likelihood
for
major
disruption
of
surfaces
containing
LBP
and
for
generation
of
residential
LBP
waste.
This
list
was
developed
following
review
of
a
comprehensive
categorization
of
R&
R
activities
by
building
industry
experts
(
EPA
1998).
The
list
excludes
a
number
of
R&
R
activities
that
disturb
LBP
only
infrequently
as
well
as
other
activities
that
may
disturb
LBP
but
generate
little
if
any
residential
LBP
waste
(
e.
g.,
remodeling
of
rooms
other
than
kitchens
and
bathrooms,
siding
replacement,
roof
maintenance
and
replacement,
insulation).
An
unknown
(
but
likely
small)
amount
of
additional
residential
LBP
waste
may
be
generated
by
activities
not
included
in
the
list
above.

2.2.2
Potential
Overlap
Between
Renovation
and
Remodeling
and
Abatement
The
baseline
number
of
abatements
conducted
in
the
U.
S.
was
obtained
by
applying
the
abatement
rate
calculated
for
ten
States,
based
on
confirmed
abatement
activity
in
those
States,
to
the
national
stock
of
pre­
1978
housing
units
containing
interior
LBP.
The
baseline
number
of
R&
R
activities
that
may
generate
residential
LBP
waste
is
derived
from
national
surveys
of
home
improvement
activity.
This
section
considers
the
possibility
that
specific
types
of
projects
may
be
counted
as
both
R&
R
activities
and
abatements,
which
may
lead
to
some
double
counting
of
activities.
6
Data
for
window
replacements,
excluding
door
replacements,
is
not
available
from
AHS;
therefore
data
for
window
and
door
replacements
combined
is
used.
Use
of
this
combined
data
may
result
in
an
overestimate
of
window
replacement
activity.

7
AHS
reports
R&
R
expenditures
for
pre­
1980
housing
units,
not
pre­
1978
housing
units.
Therefore
the
data
for
pre­
1980
housing
units
had
to
be
used
in
place
of
data
for
pre­
1978
units.

8
This
adjustment
factor
was
derived
from
the
share
of
pre­
1978
single­
family
and
multifamily
units
with
exterior
LBP,
reported
in
EPA
2001.
Exterior
LBP
is
found
on
47.6
percent
of
single­
family
units
and
16.6
percent
of
multifamily
units.
The
70:
30
ratio
of
single­
family
to
multifamily
units
was
used
to
calculate
the
(
weighted
average)
exterior
LBP
frequency
for
the
entire
pre­
1978
housing
stock,
i.
e.,
[(
0.899
*
0.476)
+
(
0.101
*
0.166)]
=
0.445
14
Double
counting
is
likely
to
arise
if
an
activity
identified
in
the
list
above
could
also
be
reported
as
an
abatement.
Based
on
the
R&
R
activities
considered
in
this
analysis,
EPA
believes
that
window
replacement
projects
have
the
greatest
potential
for
overlap,
because
window
replacement
is
both
a
common
R&
R
activity
and
a
common
abatement
activity.
To
account
for
this,
EPA
assumes
that
all
abatements
involve
window
replacement
The
remaining
R&
R
activities
(
additions,
kitchen
remodeling/
addition,
bathroom
remodeling/
addition)
are
unlikely
to
generate
sufficient
residential
LBP
waste
to
be
also
reported
as
abatements.
The
section
below
adjusts
the
estimate
of
window
replacement
activity
to
account
for
potential
double
counting.

2.2.3
Baseline
Number
of
Renovation
and
Remodeling
Activities
Data
from
the
American
Housing
Survey
(
AHS)
provide
estimates
of
the
number
of
additions
and
remodeling
projects
for
owner­
occupied
housing
over
a
two­
year
period.
The
most
recent
estimates
available
cover
1996
and
1997.
EPA
first
multiplied
the
AHS
figures
by
0.5
to
obtain
an
annual
estimate
of
R&
R
activities
in
owner­
occupied
housing
units.
Additions
and
remodeling
projects
conducted
in
rental
units
are
not
reported
in
the
AHS,
therefore
the
AHS
estimates
must
be
adjusted
to
account
for
such
activities
in
rental
units.
This
adjustment
is
accomplished
by
applying
data
from
Current
Construction
Reports
(
C50)
(
Census
2001b),
which
indicates
that
in
1997
expenditures
in
rental
units
were
20.9
percent
of
expenditures
in
owneroccupied
units.
Rental
unit
expenditures
for
kitchen
and
bathroom
remodeling
and
additions
represented
19.1
percent
of
owner­
occupied
expenditure,
while
rental
unit
expenditures
for
window
and
door
replacement
represented
44.0
percent
of
owner­
occupied
expenditures.
6
Since
the
AHS
estimates
cover
all
housing
units,
not
just
residential
housing
units
with
LBP,
the
number
of
R&
R
activities
was
also
multiplied
by
0.624,
which
is
the
share
of
housing
units
reporting
some
R&
R
expenditure
that
are
pre­
1980
housing
units
(
Census
2000b).
7
This
figure
was
further
adjusted
by
a
factor
of
0.383,
which
represents
the
share
of
all
pre­
1978
housing
units
with
exterior
LBP.
8
The
exterior
LBP
frequency
is
used
instead
of
interior
LBP
frequency
because
R&
R
activities
are
likely
to
disturb
a
larger
portion
of
exterior
surfaces
than
in
the
course
of
abatement
activities.
To
compensate
for
this
difference,
the
interior
LBP
frequency
is
used
in
the
estimation
of
abatement
activities
while
the
exterior
LBP
frequency
is
used
in
estimating
R&
R
activities.
15
Table
2­
7
summarizes
the
baseline
estimates
of
R&
R
activities.
Based
on
the
data
sources
cited
above
and
the
adjustments
noted
in
the
text,
the
baseline
number
of
R&
R
activities
estimated
to
generate
residential
LBP
waste
are
as
follows:
additions
(
662,534),
kitchen
remodels
(
1,552,220),
bathroom
remodels
(
2,102,863),
and
window
replacements
(
1,136,132).

Table
2­
7.
Derivation
of
Baseline
Number
of
R&
R
Activities
(
annual)

R&
R
Activity
Calculation
(
see
text)
a
Baseline
Estimate
Primary
Data
Source
Additions
3.947
million
x
0.5
x
1.209
x
0.624
x
0.445
662,534
Census
2001a
Kitchen
remodels
9.387
million
x
0.5
x
1.191
x
0.624
x
0.445
1,552,220
Census
2001a
Bathroom
remodels
12.717
million
x
0.5
x
1.191
x
0.624
x
0.445
2,102,863
Census
2001a
Window
replacements
(
housing
units)
7.153
million
x
0.5
x
1.144
x
0.624
x
0.445
1,136,132
Census
2001a
less:
abatements
involving
window
replacement
100%
of
abatements
in
target
housing
22,209
EPA
2000
equals:
Window
replacement
as
an
R&
R
activity
1,113,923
a
Explanation
of
calculations
 
For
additions,
3.9
million
is
the
two­
year
(
1996
and
1997)
estimate
of
the
number
of
additions.
This
is
multiplied
by
0.5
to
obtain
a
single­
year
estimate,
by
1.209
to
account
for
additions
in
rental
units,
by
0.624
to
account
for
units
built
before
1980,
and
by
0.445
to
account
for
the
share
of
units
that
contain
exterior
LBP.
Note:
Figures
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
rounding.

2.2.4
Estimated
Quantities
of
Annual
Residential
R&
R
Waste
Generated
Estimates
of
the
quantities
of
residential
LBP
waste
generated
from
R&
R
activities
are
limited
for
a
number
of
reasons.
First,
R&
R
activities
are
heterogeneous,
ranging
from
minor
renovations
to
major
remodeling
projects.
Second,
most
projects
generate
two
waste
streams,
consisting
of
"
clean"
construction
wastes
(
leftover
wood,
drywall,
etc.)
and
demolition
wastes
removed
from
the
existing
structure.
Often
both
types
of
waste
are
consolidated
into
one
dumpster
for
disposal.

Table
2­
8
shows
estimates
of
the
total
quantity
of
waste
associated
with
various
R&
R
activities.
These
range
from
0.19
tons
for
room
additions
to
2.3
tons
for
kitchen
remodels.
The
total
estimated
quantity
of
debris
generated
is
4.59
million
tons
.
To
identify
the
quantities
of
waste
likely
to
contain
LBP,
EPA
has
relied
on
a
1990
study
(
HUD
1990a)
that
measured
the
amount
of
LBP­
containing
surfaces
in
a
sample
of
284
pre­
1980
homes.
Total
surface
area
16
covered
with
LBP
for
each
of
these
architectural
components
was
then
estimated
on
a
national
level
for
all
privately
owned,
occupied
housing
units
undergoing
some
R&
R
activities.
The
same
process
was
used
to
estimate
LBP
surface
area
on
exterior
components.
The
analysis
then
estimated
the
amount
of
waste
generated
by
each
of
the
four
R&
R
activities
outlined
above
(
additions,
kitchen
remodels,
bathroom
remodels,
and
window
replacements).
These
figures
were
then
multiplied
by
the
baseline
number
of
R&
R
activities
to
produce
an
estimate
of
the
total
amount
of
residential
LBP
waste
generated.
Table
2­
8
indicates
that
R&
R
activities
generate
an
estimated
985,994
tons
of
LBP
waste
per
year.

Table
2­
8.
Baseline
Annual
Estimates
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Generated
Annually
from
R&
R
(
tons)

Type
of
R&
R
Activity
Baseline
Number
of
Affected
Activities
Average
Waste
per
R&
R
Activity
(
tons)
Total
Quantity
of
R&
R
Waste
(
tons
per
year)

Total
Waste
LBP
Waste
Total
Waste
LBP
Waste
Construction
of
additions
662,534
0.19
0.08
125,881
53,003
Remodeling
of
kitchens
1,552,220
2.30
0.20
3,570,106
310,444
Remodeling
of
bathrooms
2,102,863
0.19
0.01
399,544
21,029
Replacement
of
windows
1,113,923
0.45
0.54
501,265
601,518
Totals
5,431,540
4,596,797
985,994
Source:
Average
quantity
of
waste
per
activity
and
LBP
waste
per
activity
was
estimated
in
EPA
1998.
Baseline
number
of
activities
were
estimated
above.
Totals
may
not
add
due
to
rounding.

2.2.5
Affected
Entities
and
Employees
Estimates
of
the
number
of
establishments
and
employees
potentially
engaged
in
R&
R
activities
that
generate
residential
LBP
waste
are
based
on
a
recent
study
published
by
the
Joint
Center
for
Housing
Studies
at
Harvard
University.
The
report,
Remodeling
Homes
for
Changing
Households
(
Joint
Center
2001),
provides
updated
national
estimates
of
the
number
of
residential
remodeling
establishments.
The
estimates
are
based
on
analysis
of
receipts
data
for
construction
establishments,
to
identify
establishments
for
which
a
majority
of
receipts
are
obtained
from
renovation
and
remodeling
activities
(
as
opposed
to,
for
example,
construction
activities).
Table
2­
9
presents
the
study's
findings.
17
Table
2­
9
Estimates
of
the
Number
of
Residential
Construction
and
Remodeling
Establishments
(
1997)

Industry
Number1
(
thousands)
Value
of
Construction
Receipts
($
Mil)
Value
of
Remodeling
Receipts
($
Mil)

General
Building
Construction
General
Building
Contractors:
Residential
62.4
$
26,874
$
22,958
Special
Trades
Plumbing,
Heating,
and
AC
32.0
$
13,046
$
9,495
Painting
and
Paper
Hanging
16.8
$
3,021
$
2,460
Electrical
Work
11.5
$
2,773
$
1,867
Masonry,
Stone
Work,
Tile
Setting,
and
Plastering
6.6
$
1,761
$
1,302
Carpentry
and
Floor
Work
18.3
$
5,435
$
4,398
Roofing,
Siding,
and
Sheet
Metal
Work
15.1
$
6,075
$
5,097
Concrete
Work
2.0
$
661
$
513
Water
Well
Drilling
0.3
$
84
$
55
Miscellaneous
6.6
$
2,465
$
1,968
Total
Special
Trade
109.1
$
35,321
$
27,155
Total
R&
R
Contractors
171.5
$
62,195
$
50,113
1
With
more
than
50%
of
receipts
from
remodeling.
Source:
Joint
Center
(
2001)

According
to
the
Harvard
study,
a
total
of
171,500
residential
R&
R
establishments
in
the
United
States
earn
more
than
50
percent
of
receipts
from
remodeling
and
renovation
activities.
These
establishments
are
found
in
both
the
general
building
construction
industry
(
62,400
establishments
or
36.4
percent
of
the
total)
as
well
as
various
special
trades.
These
include
large
numbers
of:
plumbing,
heating
and
air
conditioning
contractors
(
32,000
establishments),
painting
and
paper
hanging
contractors
(
16,800
establishments),
carpentry
and
floor
work
contractors
(
18,300
establishments),
and
roofing,
siding
and
sheet
metal
contractors
(
15,100
establishments).
EPA
believes
that
all
of
these
establishments
may
be
potentially
affected
by
the
Final
Rule.
18
2.3
Residential
LBP
Waste
Transportation
OSW's
July
2000
policy
statement
(
Cotsworth
2000)
clarified
that
residential
LBP
waste
generated
from
residential
activities
is
no
longer
a
hazardous
waste,
and
as
such,
it
can
be
"
discarded
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(
MSWLF)
or
a
municipal
solid
waste
combustor."
(
Cotsworth
2000).
The
Final
Rule
clarifies
that
such
waste
can
also
be
disposed
of
in
C&
D
landfills.
As
far
as
the
transportation
industry
is
concerned,
this
action
will
not
affect
the
number
of
transporters
hauling
residential
LBP
waste,
but
it
may
affect
hauling
patterns
as
the
waste
by
changing
the
patterns
of
hauling
to
C&
D
landfills
and
MSWLFs.

The
following
NAICS
industries
may
potentially
be
affected
this
action:

#
General
Freight
Trucking,
Local
(
NAICS
48411)

#
General
Freight
Trucking,
Long­
Distance
(
NAICS
48412)

#
Solid
Waste
Collection
(
NAICS
562111)

#
Other
Waste
Collection
(
NAICS
562119)

Table
2­
10
shows
1997
establishment
and
employment
data
for
potentially
affected
by
this
action.

Table
2­
10
Number
of
Establishments
and
Employment
in
Industries
That
May
Haul
Residential
LBP
Waste
NAICS
Code
Definition
Establishments
Number
of
Employees
Average
Number
of
Employees
per
Establishment
48411
General
Freight
Trucking,
Local
15,460
134,777
8.7
48412
General
Freight
Trucking,
Long­
Distance
29,321
684,730
23.4
562111
Solid
Waste
Collection
7,083
137,049
19.3
562119
Other
Waste
Collection
827
7,227
8.7
Totals
52,691
963,783
18.3
Source:
Census
2000a.

2.4
Residential
LBP
Waste
Disposal
As
a
result
of
the
July
2000
policy
statement
(
Cotsworth
2000),
residential
LBP
waste
is
classified
as
a
household
waste
and
thus
can
be
disposed
of
in
a
permitted
MSW
landfill.
Under
section
258.2,
a
C&
D
landfill
that
receives
residential
LBP
waste
could
be
deemed
to
be
receiving
19
household
waste
and
may
need
to
comply
with
EPA's
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfill
Criteria
found
in
40
CFR
part
258.
Today's
rule
is
designed
to
expressly
state
that
C&
D
landfills
can
receive
residential
LBP
waste,
as
long
as
that
is
the
only
household
waste
they
accept,
without
becoming
subject
to
the
requirements
for
a
MSWLF
in
part
258.
Therefore,
potentially
economically
affected
disposal
facilities
include
both
MSWLFs
and
C&
D
landfills.
The
Final
Rule
will
likely
shift
waste
from
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills,
where
economically
advantageous.

Table
2­
11
shows
State­
by
State
data
on
the
number
of
C&
D
landfills
and
MSWLFs,
as
reported
in
the
solid
waste
industry
publication
BioCycle.
Although
the
most
recent
national
total
reported
for
C&
D
landfills
is
1,860
(
in
1999),
the
State­
by­
State
estimates,
compiled
by
BioCycle
for
1999
and
previous
years,
sum
to
2,117.
The
number
of
MSWLFs
in
1999
was
estimated
to
be
2,216.
The
potential
impact
of
the
rule
would
be
to
shift
disposal
from
some
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills.

2.4.1
Availability
of
C&
D
Landfill
Capacity
The
number
of
C&
D
landfills
has
fluctuated
since
1997,
when
BioCycle
first
included
a
count
of
C&
D
landfills
in
their
annual
report.
In
1997,
BioCycle
reported
there
were
1,000
C&
D
landfills
nationwide.
The
next
year,
1998,
BioCycle
reported
that
the
number
of
C&
D
landfills
had
increased
to
1,334,
and
it
increased
again
in
1999,
to
1,860
landfills.
In
the
most
recent
issue
for
2000,
BioCycle
reports
an
increase
in
the
number
of
C&
D
landfills,
to
2,117.
EPA
has
previously
noted
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
C&
D
landfills
over
the
1986
to
1994
period,
from
2,500
landfills
in
1986
to
1,800
landfills
in
1994
(
EPA
1995c).
Table
2­
12
shows
the
distribution
of
States
by
number
of
C&
D
landfills,
based
on
the
latest
BioCycle
report.
As
seen
here,
15
States
have
10
or
fewer
C&
D
landfills.
Two
States
(
RI
and
DC)
have
no
C&
D
landfills,
three
States
(
DE,
NJ,
NH)
have
one
C&
D
landfill,
and
eight
States
have
between
two
and
five
C&
D
landfills
(
WY,
NV,
CO,
HI,
OK,
AK,
MO,
PA).

During
the
1997­
2000
period,
based
on
a
review
of
data
reported
in
BioCycle,
seven
States
reported
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
C&
D
landfills
(
AK,
AZ,
FL,
MD,
NJ,
NY,
OH).
Over
the
same
period,
13
States
reported
an
increase
in
C&
D
landfills
(
KS,
ME,
MA,
MS,
NC,
ND,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
WA,
WV,
WI).
In
most
other
States
reporting
to
the
BioCycle
survey,
the
number
of
C&
D
landfills
remained
fairly
steady
from
1997­
2000.
20
Table
2­
11.
Estimated
Number
of
C&
D
Landfills
and
MSWLFs,
by
State
(
1999)

State
C&
D
Landfills
[
a]
MSW
Landfills
Alabama
89
29
Alaska
4
239
Arizona
6
47
Arkansas
32
23
California
450
[
c]
184
Colorado
2
115
Connecticut
40
1
Delaware
1
3
Dist.
of
Columbia
0
0
Florida
158
57
Georgia
32
70
Hawaii
3
10
Idaho
n/
a
29
Illinois
0
[
b]
58
Indiana
11
37
Iowa
13
61
Kansas
111
54
Kentucky
25
35
Louisiana
54
[
c]
23
Maine
29
8
Maryland
12
22
Massachusetts
19
43
Michigan
31
53
Minnesota
79
22
Mississippi
63
19
Missouri
4
26
Montana
2
[
c]
33
Nebraska
14
24
Nevada
2
26
New
Hampshire
1
4
New
Jersey
1
12
New
Mexico
11
[
d]
77
New
York
23
28
North
Carolina
52
39
North
Dakota
50+
14
Ohio
76
49
Oklahoma
4
41
Oregon
6
29
Pennsylvania
5
49
Rhode
Island
0
4
South
Carolina
152
19
South
Dakota
172
15
Tennessee
65
51
Texas
47
184
Utah
39
36
Vermont
1
[
c]
5
Virginia
24
65
Table
2­
11.
Estimated
Number
of
C&
D
Landfills
and
MSWLFs,
by
State
(
1999)

State
C&
D
Landfills
[
a]
MSW
Landfills
21
Washington
31
21
West
Virginia
29
19
Wisconsin
40
46
Wyoming
2
58
Total
2,117
[
e]
2,216
Notes:
[
a]
Data
are
as
reported
for
1999,
unless
otherwise
noted
[
b]
1998,
1996
[
c]
1998
[
d]
1998.
1997
[
e]
The
sum
of
entries
is
higher
than
total
reported
(
1,860)
for
1999
due
to
the
inclusion
of
figures
from
years
other
than
1999
in
order
to
provide
the
most
comprehensive
data
available.
Sources:
BioCycle
(
April
issue,
2000).

Table
2­
12.
Distribution
of
States
by
Number
of
C&
D
Landfills,
2000
Number
of
C&
D
Landfills
Number
of
States
Percent
of
Total
0­
10
15
34.1%

11­
20
5
11.4%

21­
30
4
9.1%

31­
40
7
15.9%

41­
50
2
4.5%

51­
75
4
9.1%

76­
100
3
6.8%

101­
150
1
2.3%

150+
3
6.8%

TOTAL
44
100.0%

Source:
BioCycle
April
2000
22
2.4.2
Availability
of
MSW
Landfill
Capacity
In
1988,
the
first
year
of
the
BioCycle
reports,
there
were
around
8,000
MSWLFs
reported.
The
most
recent
report
puts
the
number
at
2,216.
That
is
a
decline
of
almost
6,000
landfills
in
twelve
years.
While
the
number
of
landfills
nationally
has
shrunk
considerably
in
recent
years,
the
total
capacity
of
those
landfills
that
remain
open
has
remained
constant
or
in
some
cases
increased.
This
seeming
contradiction
is
a
result
of
the
closure
of
many
smaller
landfills
combined
with
the
opening
or
expansion
of
large
regional
landfills.

Table
2­
13
shows
the
distribution
of
States
by
remaining
MSW
landfill
capacity.
As
shown,
while
10
States
report
10
or
fewer
years
of
MSW
disposal
capacity
remaining,
another
seven
report
between
11
and
15
years
remaining
and
15
States
report
more
than
20
years
of
capacity.
Table
2­
14
identifies
eight
of
the
ten
States
that
report
10
years
or
less
of
remaining
landfill
capacity,
and
the
reported
remaining
capacity
for
each.

Table
2­
13.
Distribution
of
States
by
Remaining
MSW
Landfill
Capacity
(
Years)

Capacity
Remaining
(
Number
of
years)
Number
of
States
Percent
of
Total
0­
5
1
2.9%

6­
10
9
26.5%

11­
15
7
20.6%

16­
20
2
5.9%

20+
5
14.7%

30+
4
11.8%

40+
2
5.9%

50+
3
8.8%

500+
1
2.9%

Total
34
100.0%

Source:
BioCycle
2000.
Not
all
states
are
included
in
this
distribution..
23
Table
2­
14.
States
Reporting
Less
Than
Ten
Years
of
Remaining
MSW
Disposal
Capacity
State
Remaining
Capacity
(
years)

Maine
7­
10
Massachusetts
1.8
Minnesota
7.5
Missouri
5­
10
New
Hampshire
10
Rhode
Island
10
Tennessee
5­
10
Wisconsin
6+

Source:
BioCycle,
April
2000
2.5
State
and
Territorial
Governments
The
40
CFR
Part
257
and
258
regulations
being
amended
by
the
Final
Rule
are
implemented
by
States
and
territories
who
have
received
EPA
approval
of
their
RCRA
Subtitle
D
programs.
As
of
March
1,
2000,
49
States
and
territories
had
received
approval
of
their
programs.
Because
today's
rule
is
less
stringent
than
existing
federal
criteria,
States
are
not
required
to
amend
permit
programs
which
have
been
determined
to
be
adequate
under
40
CFR
Part
239.
States
have
the
option
to
amend
statutory
or
regulatory
definitions
pursuant
to
today's
Final
rule.
If
a
State
chooses
to
amend
its
permit
program
pursuant
to
today's
action,
the
State
must
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
the
modification
as
provided
by
40
CFR
239.12.
Today's
amendments
are
directly
applicable
to
landfills
in
States
without
an
approved
permit
program
under
Part
239.
9
The
July
2000
policy
clarification
states
that
LBP
waste
includes
"...
debris,
paint
chips,
dust,
and
sludges
generated
from
abatement
and
deleading
activities."
(
Cotsworth
2000).

24
CHAPTER
THREE
DESCRIPTION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
3.1
Regulatory
Background
On
December
18,
1998,
EPA
published
a
proposed
rule
suspending
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
(
TC)
Rule
(
40
CFR
261.24)
for
LBP
debris
(
63
FR
70233).
The
proposed
rule
would
exempt
LBP
debris
from
the
hazardous
waste
requirements
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
Concurrent
with
this
action,
EPA
published
a
proposed
rule
under
TSCA
that
would
introduce
new
standards
for
management
and
disposal
of
LBP
debris
(
63
FR
70190).
The
companion
TSCA
rulemaking
was
designed
to
ensure
that
certain
precautions
were
taken
to
minimize
the
potential
for
exposure
to
LBP
debris
during
storage
and
transport.

By
suspending
the
TC
Rule
for
LBP
debris,
the
proposed
rule
would
exempt
generators
of
such
waste
from
requirements
to
test
the
waste
to
determine
whether
it
exhibits
the
TC
for
lead
(
i.
e.,
determine
whether
it
is
a
hazardous
waste).
If
found
to
be
a
hazardous
waste,
the
debris
previously
would
have
had
to
be
transported
as
a
hazardous
waste
and
disposed
of
in
a
hazardous
waste
disposal
facility.
These
testing,
transport
and
disposal
requirements
substantially
increase
the
costs
of
managing
LBP
debris,
and
were
found
by
EPA
to
be
an
impediment
to
further
lead
abatement
activities
that
could
reduce
harmful
exposures
to
lead.

On
July
31,
2000,
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
issued
a
policy
statement
(
Cotsworth
2000)
clarifying
the
regulatory
status
of
LBP
waste9
generated
in
homes
and
other
residences.
The
policy
allows
contractors
who
generate
LBP
waste
from
"
residential
abatement,
renovation
and
remodeling,
and
rehabilitation
activities"
to
dispose
of
the
waste
as
household
waste
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
or
municipal
solid
waste
combustors
according
to
State
and
local
requirements
[
italics
added].

3.2
Justification
for
the
Final
Rule
The
July
2000
policy
statement
classifies
residential
LBP
waste
as
a
household
waste
and
states
that,
as
such,
it
can
be
"
discarded
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(
MSWLF)
or
a
municipal
solid
waste
combustor."
(
Cotsworth
2000).
As
a
result,
any
C&
D
landfills
that
accept
residential
LBP
waste
following
issuance
of
this
policy
statement
could
be
deemed
to
be
receiving
25
household
waste
and
may
need
to
comply
with
EPA's
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfill
Criteria
found
in
40
CFR
part
258.
These
criteria
establish
minimum
national
performance
standards
necessary
to
ensure
that
"
no
reasonable
probability
of
adverse
effects
on
health
or
the
environment"
will
result
from
solid
waste
disposal
facilities
(
40
CFR
Part
258).
Compliance
with
these
criteria
would
be
costly
for
C&
D
landfills.

The
intent
of
the
Final
Rule
is
to
allow
residential
LBP
waste
to
be
disposed
of
in
both
MSWLFs
and
in
C&
D
landfills.
The
rule
would
do
so
by
amending
the
definition
of
a
MSWLF
unit
and
by
adding
definitions
for
construction
and
demolition
(
C&
D)
landfill
and
residential
leadbased
paint
waste
(
see
page
1
of
this
document).
Under
the
revised
and
additional
definitions,
any
C&
D
landfill
that
accepts
residential
lead­
based
paint
waste
and
no
other
household
waste
is
not
a
MSWLF
unit
and
therefore
not
subject
to
the
Part
258
criteria.
This
would
allow
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
C&
D
landfills.

This
regulatory
change
has
several
impacts.
First,
it
provides
additional
flexibility
to
States
and
territories
for
managing
their
solid
waste
streams.
The
Final
Rule
offers
States
the
option
to
authorize
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
C&
D
landfills.
The
second
result
of
the
Final
Rule
will
be
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
residential
LBP
waste
generators
to
save
money,
in
cases
where
the
cost
of
disposing
of
such
waste
in
C&
D
landfills
is
below
the
cost
of
disposing
of
the
waste
in
MSWLFs.
The
relative
costs
of
disposal
in
C&
D
landfills
and
MSWLFs
and
the
magnitude
of
the
potential
annual
cost
savings
are
discussed
in
Chapter
Four.

Finally,
to
the
extent
that
costs
for
disposing
of
residential
LBP
waste
are
reduced
as
a
result
of
this
action,
it
may
lead
to
an
increase
in
the
level
of
LBP
hazard
abatement
activity.
As
shown
in
Chapter
Four,
this
is
expected
to
have
the
most
impact
in
the
public
housing
sector,
where
public
housing
authorities
are
most
likely
to
use
the
savings
from
reduced
residential
LBP
waste
management
costs
to
perform
additional
LBP
hazard
reduction
activities,
including
abatements.
Thus,
the
rule
may
have
the
effect
of
further
reducing
the
exposure
of
sensitive
populations,
particularly
children,
to
the
effects
of
LBP.
The
hazards
of
lead
exposure
are
wellunderstood
and
include
decreased
intelligence
(
lower
IQ),
behavioral
problems,
reduced
physical
stature
and
growth,
and
impaired
hearing
(
Task
Force
2000).
26
CHAPTER
FOUR
COST
ANALYSIS
The
Final
Rule
will
impose
no
additional
costs
but
may
result
in
cost
savings
and
incremental
public
health
benefits.
This
chapter
presents
estimates
of
the
magnitude
of
the
savings
that
will
result
from
this
action,
and
identifies
the
sectors
most
likely
to
benefit.

The
Final
Rule
will
expressly
allow
C&
D
landfills
to
receive
residential
LBP
waste
without
becoming
subject
to
the
requirements
for
a
MSWLF
in
part.
As
a
result,
EPA
believes
that
in
those
parts
of
the
country
where
it
is
cheaper
to
transport
and
dispose
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
C&
D
landfills
compared
to
MSWLFs,
some
residential
LBP
waste
will
be
diverted
from
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills.
Where
this
occurs,
generators
will
benefit
from
lower
waste
management
and
disposal
costs.
Residential
LBP
waste
transporters
will
continue
to
transport
residential
LBP
waste
for
disposal,
except
disposal
will
take
place
at
C&
D
landfills,
as
opposed
to
MSWLFs.
Some
MSW
landfill
operators
will
experience
a
reduction
in
demand
for
disposal
services,
which
will
be
offset
by
an
increase
in
demand
for
disposal
services
at
C&
D
landfills.
This
section
presents
current
data
on
the
relative
costs
of
transportation
and
disposal
to
C&
D
landfills
and
MSWLFs.

4.1
Cost
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Transportation
Specific
data
on
the
costs
of
transporting
residential
LBP
waste
is
not
readily
available.
The
R.
S.
Means
Co.
(
Means
2000),
publishers
of
data
that
is
widely
used
in
the
construction
industry,
reports
costs
for
contractors
hauling
rubbish
of:

$
0.71
per
mile
for
loads
up
to
8
cubic
yards
and

$
0.53
per
mile
for
loads
over
8
cubic
yards
in
size
(
which
require
a
larger
truck).

EPA
believes
that
these
costs
reasonably
represent
the
costs
of
hauling
waste
generated
by
residential
LBP
abatements
and
renovation
and
remodeling
activities.

To
estimate
the
typical
haul
length
to
MSWLFs
and
C&
D
landfills,
EPA
used
the
following
approach.
In
1995,
EPA
estimated
that
the
average
haul
length
to
MSWLFs
was
28
miles
(
EPA
1995a).
As
shown
in
Chapter
Three,
the
number
of
MSWLFs
has
decreased
dramatically
in
recent
years.
In
1994,
there
were
an
estimated
4,482
MSWLFs
in
operation
(
EPA
1995a),
but
more
recent
industry
estimates
suggest
there
are
presently
2,216
MSWLFs
in
operation
(
BioCycle
2000).
If
we
assume
that
the
average
haul
distance
to
MSWLFs
has
increased
in
proportion
to
the
decrease
in
the
number
of
MSWLFs,
the
estimated
average
haul
distance
to
MSWLFs
in
2000
can
be
calculated
as
follows:
27
eq1.
haul
distance
to
MSWLFs
in
2000
=
haul
distance
in
1995
x
(
MSWLF
1995
/
MSWLF
2000)
=
28
x
(
4,482
/
2,216)
=
56.6
miles
To
estimate
the
average
haul
distance
to
C&
D
landfills,
we
can
adjust
the
MSWLF
haul
distance
by
the
ratio
of
the
number
of
C&
D
landfills
to
MSWLFs
using
the
same
approach
as
EPA
(
1995a):

eq2.
haul
distance
to
C&
D
landfills
in
2000
=
56.6
x
(
MSWLF
2000
/
C&
DLF
2000)
=
56.6
x
(
2,216
/
2,117)
=
59.2
miles
The
updated
cost
to
transport
residential
LBP
waste
to
C&
D
landfills
is
obtained
by
multiplying
current
(
2000)
costs
of
$
0.71
per
mile
for
loads
under
8
cubic
yards
by
the
average
haul
of
59.2
miles,
for
a
cost
of
$
42.03
per
load.
The
cost
to
transport
residential
LBP
waste
to
MSWLFs
is
obtained
by
multiplying
the
cost
per
mile
($
0.71)
for
trucks
under
8
cubic
yards
by
the
haul
distance
of
56.6
miles.
This
yields
a
cost
of
$
40.19
per
load
(
see
Tables
2­
4
and
2­
8).
Since
the
average
abatement
and
R&
R
project
generates
less
than
8
cubic
yard
of
waste,
the
cost
per
load
can
serve
as
an
estimate
of
the
cost
of
waste
transportation
per
activity.
Table
4­
1
summarizes
these
estimates.

Table
4­
1.
Haul
Distance
and
Transportation
Cost
for
Residential
LBP
Waste
Type
of
Landfill
Average
Haul
Distance
(
miles)
Cost
per
mile
(
loads
under
8
yd3)
Cost
MSW
landfill
56.6
$
0.71
$
40.19
C&
D
landfill
59.2
$
42.03
Sources:
EPA
1995a;
Biocycle
2000;
Means
2000.
10
The
quantities
of
waste
to
be
disposed
will
vary
considerably
depending
on
the
size
of
the
abatement
project
or
renovation
and
remodeling
activity.
The
1998
economic
analysis
(
EPA
1998)
estimated
that
abatements
could
generate
between
1.6
and
2.8
tons
per
housing
unit,
and
renovation
and
remodeling
activities
could
generate
between
0.2
and
2.3
tons
each.
In
this
analysis
we
use
the
figure
of
2.19
tons
per
activity
 
the
average
for
residential
abatements
 
to
determine
the
relative
costs
of
disposal
for
MSW
and
C&
D
landfills.
The
costs
for
each
option,
and
the
relative
costs,
could
vary
depending
on
the
quantity
of
waste
to
be
disposed.

28
4.2
Cost
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Disposal
4.2.1
Disposal
to
MSW
Landfills
Nationally,
two
sources
report
similar
weighted
average
tipping
fees
at
MSWLFs
across
the
United
States.
BioCycle
(
2000)
reports
an
overall
estimate
of
$
35.57
per
ton
while
Chartwell
(
2000)
reports
an
estimate
of
$
37.11
per
ton.
Regional
differences,
however,
are
seen
in
the
Chartwell
data,
shown
below
in
Table
4­
2.
Tip
fees
for
MSWLFs
range
from
a
low
of
$
20.88
per
ton
in
the
West
to
a
high
of
$
59.60
per
ton
in
the
Northeast.
Table
4­
2
also
applies
these
costs
to
the
average
amount
of
residential
LBP
waste
generated
from
residential
abatements,
2.19
tons,
which
is
used
to
represent
the
average
quantity
of
waste
disposed
from
residential
LBP
activities.
10
Disposal
costs
for
this
quantity
of
waste
range
from
$
45.73
in
the
West
to
$
130.52
in
the
Northeast,
with
an
average
of
$
81.27
nationally.

Table
4­
2.
Tip
Fees
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
Region
Tip
Fee,
$/
ton
(
April
2000)
Disposal
Cost
for
Average
Waste
Quantity
(
2.19
tons)

Midwest
$
33.88
$
74.20
Northeast
$
59.60
$
130.52
South
$
34.44
$
75.42
West
$
20.88
$
45.73
National
Average
$
37.11
$
81.27
Source:
Chartwell
(
2000)

4.2.2
Disposal
to
C&
D
Landfills
Disposal
fees
at
C&
D
landfills
are
estimated
using
the
regional
fees
reported
in
EPA
1998.
The
tip
fees
(
updated
from
1998
to
2000
dollars)
range
from
$
21.19
in
the
Midwest
to
$
49.49
in
the
Northeast,
with
a
national
average
of
$
26.03
(
see
Table
4­
3),
Total
disposal
costs
assuming
the
average
volume
of
residential
abatement
waste
range
from
$
46.41
in
the
Midwest
to
$
108.38
in
the
Northeast.
29
Table
4­
3.
Tip
Fees
for
Construction
and
Demolition
Landfills
Region
Tip
Fee,
$/
ton
($
1997)
Tip
Fee,
$/
ton
($
2000)
a
Disposal
Cost
for
Average
Waste
Quantity
(
2.19
tons)

Midwest
$
19.70
$
21.19
$
46.41
Northeast
$
46.00
$
49.49
$
108.38
South
$
27.10
$
29.15
$
63.84
West
$
42.60
$
45.83
$
100.37
National
Average
$
24.20
$
26.03
$
57.01
a
Data
from
1997
were
inflated
by
adjusting
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics'
Producer
Price
Index
for
motor
freight
transportation
(
1997
=
102.9;
2000
=
110.7)
Source:
Bush
et
al.
(
1997)

As
seen
in
these
two
tables,
tip
fees
at
MSWLFs
are
generally
higher
than
at
C&
D
landfills
The
exception
to
this
is
the
Western
portion
of
the
U.
S.,
where
the
tip
fees
at
MSWLFs
are
actually
significantly
below
those
for
C&
D
landfills
in
the
region
(
e.
g.,
$
20.88
per
ton
for
MSWLFs
compared
to
$
45.83
per
ton
for
C&
D
landfills).

4.3
Residential
LBP
Waste
Transport
and
Disposal
Cost
The
data
and
calculations
above
were
used
to
develop
current
(
2000)
estimates
of
the
cost
of
transporting
and
disposing
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
C&
D
landfills
and
MSWLFs.
Since
some
of
the
cost
equations
are
dependant
on
the
quantity
of
waste
being
disposed,
this
analysis
assumes
2.19
tons
of
waste,
as
this
represents
the
weighted
average
quantity
of
residential
LBP
waste
generated
during
LBP
abatements
(
see
Table
2­
5)

Table
4­
4
compares
the
combined
costs
of
transportation
and
disposal
for
C&
D
landfills
and
MSW
landfills.
The
transportation
costs
reflect
estimated
differences
in
haul
distance
to
each
type
of
facility,
and
have
been
estimated
using
the
method
described
above.
The
tip
fees
reflect
regional
differences
in
rates
charged
at
C&
D
landfills
and
MSWLFs
in
various
parts
of
the
country.

These
data
suggest
that
when
national­
level
costs
are
used,
at
least,
the
costs
for
hauling
and
disposing
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
a
C&
D
landfill
will
typically
be
lower,
by
about
18
percent.
For
an
average
amount
of
residential
LBP
waste,
the
cost
of
hauling
and
disposing
of
the
waste
in
a
C&
D
landfill
would
be
$
99.04
which
is
$
22.38
below
the
$
121.46
it
would
cost
to
haul
and
dispose
of
the
waste
in
a
MSW
landfill.
30
Table
4­
4.
Average
Transportation
and
Disposal
Cost
for
Residential
LBP
Waste
(
2000)
a
Disposal
Location
Transportation
Tip
Fees
Total
Cost
MSW
landfill
$
40.19
$
81.27
$
121.46
C&
D
landfill
$
42.03
$
57.01
$
99.04
Cost
differential
for
C&
D
landfill
$
1.84
($
24.26)
($
22.42)

Percent
4.6%
­
29.9%
­
18.5%

a
Assumes
average
waste
volume
of
2.19
tons
or
4.02
cubic
yards
(
see
Table
2­
5).

As
noted,
the
tip
fees
shown
in
Table
4­
4
are
based
on
national
average
cost
data.
These
costs,
however,
do
vary
considerably
by
region,
as
evidenced
by
Tables
4­
2
and
4­
3.
When
the
national­
level
transportation
costs
are
combined
with
the
regional
disposal
costs,
as
in
Table
4­
5
below,
some
regional
differences
between
MSW
landfill
and
C&
D
landfill
disposal
costs
can
be
seen.
For
example,
costs
for
disposal
to
C&
D
landfills
are
lower
than
costs
for
disposal
to
MSW
landfills
in
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South
(
by
$
25.95,
$
20.30,
and
$
9.74
respectively),
and
higher
in
the
West
region
(
by
$
56.48).

Table
4­
5.
Regional
Differences
in
the
Cost
of
Disposal
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
from
Abatementa
Disposal
Location
Transportation
Tip
Fees
Total
Cost
MSW
Landfill
Midwest
$
40.19
$
74.20
$
114.39
Northeast
$
130.52
$
170.71
South
$
75.42
$
115.61
West
$
45.73
$
85.92
C&
D
landfill
Midwest
$
42.03
$
46.41
$
88.44
Northeast
$
108.38
$
150.41
South
$
63.84
$
105.87
West
$
100.37
$
142.40
a
Assumes
average
residential
LBP
abatement
waste
volume
of
2.19
tons
(
EPA
1998).
11
The
transportation
share
of
total
costs
ranges
from
23.6
percent
to
47.6
percent,
depending
on
the
region
and
type
of
landfill.

31
HUD's
most
recent
survey
of
LBP
hazards
suggests
that
the
Northeast,
Midwest,
and
South
regions
combined
contain,
proportionately,
slightly
more
of
the
housing
stock
with
LBP.
These
regions
combined
account
for
80.3
percent
of
all
housing
units
but
84.4
percent
of
housing
units
with
LBP
nationwide
(
see
Table
4­
6).
These
data
suggest
a
majority
of
generators
of
residential
LBP
waste
will
be
located
in
regions
where
transport
and
disposal
to
C&
D
landfills
is
less
expensive
than
transport
and
disposal
to
MSW
landfills,
and
hence
may
benefit
from
the
flexibility
provided
by
the
Final
Rule
to
dispose
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
C&
D
landfills.

Table
4­
6.
Regional
Distribution
of
Housing
Units
with
LBP
Region
All
Housing
Units
Housing
Units
with
LBP
Number
of
Units
(`
000)
Percent
of
Total
Number
of
Units
(`
000)
Percent
of
Total
Midwest
22,083
23.1%
11,748
31.0%

Northeast
19,290
20.2%
10,600
28.0%

South
35,474
37.1%
9,607
25.4%

West
18,841
19.7%
5,942
15.7%

Total
95,688
100.0%
37,897
100.0%

Source:
HUD
2001.
Shaded
rows
identify
regions
where
total
disposal
cost
for
C&
D
landfills
is
below
cost
for
MSW
landfills.

These
regional
cost
comparisons
are
based
on
national
estimates
of
transportation
cost,
which
in
turn
are
based
on
national
estimates
of
waste
hauling
distances.
The
average
haul
distance
to
MSW
landfills
is
estimated
at
56.6
miles
while
the
average
haul
distance
to
C&
D
landfills
is
estimated
at
59.2
miles
(
see
Section
4.1
above).
Regional
differences
in
these
relative
distances
could
influence
relative
transportation
costs
and
hence
relative
total
disposal
costs,
11
but
no
attempt
has
been
made
to
adjust
for
these
differences.
In
addition,
the
relative
costs
will
vary
depending
on
the
quantity
of
the
waste
to
be
disposed.
While
the
transportation
cost
is
fixed
for
loads
under
8
cubic
yards,
the
disposal
cost
is
based
on
the
weight
of
the
load.
The
cost
comparisons
shown
above
are
based
on
a
load
of
2.19
tons,
which
is
the
average
quantity
of
waste
generated
by
residential
abatements.

Table
4­
7
combines
estimates
of
the
national
quantities
of
residential
LBP
waste
generated
by
abatement
and
R&
R
activities
with
national­
level
estimates
of
waste
hauling
and
disposal
costs.
As
seen,
if
all
residential
LBP
waste
was
currently
being
disposed
in
MSWLFs
and
the
national
average
cost
of
hauling
and
disposal
to
MSW
landfills
(
from
Table
4­
4)
is
$
121.46
per
ton,
the
baseline
cost
of
residential
LBP
waste
management
would
be
$
125.68
million
per
year.
If,
as
a
result
of
the
Final
Rule,
all
residential
LBP
waste
can
now
be
managed
in
C&
D
landfills,
and
the
32
national
average
cost
of
hauling
and
disposal
to
C&
D
landfills
is
$
99.04
per
ton,
then
the
baseline
cost
of
residential
LBP
waste
management
would
drop
to
$
102.48
million,
for
a
savings
of
$
23.19
million
per
year.

As
seen
in
Table
4­
5,
however,
the
combined
cost
of
hauling
and
transport
between
MSWLFs
and
C&
D
landfills
varies
by
region.
In
the
Midwest,
Northeast
and
South,
the
cost
to
haul
and
dispose
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
C&
D
landfills
is
less
than
the
cost
for
MSW
landfills,
but
the
opposite
is
true
in
the
West.
Consequently,
the
amount
of
waste
shifted
from
MSW
landfills
to
C&
D
landfills
as
a
result
of
the
Final
Rule
will
be
less
than
100
percent,
and
the
actual
savings
will
be
less
than
the
full
$
23.19
million
per
year.

Table
4­
7.
Comparative
Costs
of
Residential
LBP
Waste
Management
in
C&
D
Landfills
and
MSWLFs
Activity
Abatement
Renovation
and
remodeling
Total
Baseline
Quantity
of
Waste
Generated
(
tons)
48,723
985,994
1,034,717
percent
4.7%
95.3%
100.0%

Cost
of
transport
and
disposal
($/
ton)

MSW
landfill
$
121.46
C&
D
landfill
$
99.04
Total
cost
MSW
landfill
$
5,917,896
$
119,758,831
$
125,676,727
C&
D
landfill
$
4,825,526
$
97,652,846
$
102,478,372
Source:
Tables
2­
5,
2­
8,
and
4­
1,
4­
2,
and
4­
3.

For
this
analysis,
EPA
assumes
that
only
residential
LBP
waste
generators
in
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South
regions
would
potentially
shift
disposal
from
MSW
landfills
to
C&
D
landfills.
EPA
further
assumes
that
the
percentage
of
residential
LBP
waste
that
is
affected
is
proportional
to
the
share
of
these
three
regions
in
the
number
of
housing
units
with
LBP
(
84.4
percent,
from
Table
4­
6).
Table
4­
8
indicates
that,
under
these
assumptions,
a
maximum
total
of
873,300
tons
of
residential
LBP
waste
could
be
diverted
from
MSW
landfills
to
C&
D
landfills
annually.
This
shift
in
disposal
would
save
residential
LBP
waste
generators
in
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South
regions
up
to
$
15.98
million
annually.
Table
4­
8
allocates
these
savings
to
abatement
and
R&
R
activity
based
on
the
percentage
of
national
residential
LBP
waste
generation
each
accounts
for
(
from
Table
4­
7).
As
seen,
the
savings
accruing
to
generators
of
residential
LBP
abatement
waste
could
range
up
to
$
0.79
million
per
year,
while
the
savings
accruing
to
generators
of
residential
R&
R
waste
could
range
up
to
$
15.98
million
per
year.
The
exact
33
magnitude
of
the
savings
will
depend
on
the
quantity
of
waste
that
is
diverted
from
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills,
which
in
turn
will
depend
on
the
quantities
of
waste
being
generated
and
the
relative
costs
of
transport
and
disposal
to
MSW
and
C&
D
landfills
faced
by
the
individual
generator.

Table
4­
8
Estimated
Potential
Savings
from
the
Final
Rule
(
annual)

Data
Element
National
Data
Midwest
Northeast
South
Midwest
+
Northeast
+
South
Share
of
housing
units
with
LBP
(
a)
100.0%
31.0%
28.0%
25.4%
84.4%

Total
waste
from
residential
abatement
and
R&
R
(
tons)
(
b)
1,034,716
320,762
289,720
262,818
873,300
Disposal
cost
to
MSW
($/
ton)
(
c)

­­
$
114.39
$
170.71
$
115.61
­­
Disposal
Cost
to
C&
D
($/
ton)
$
88.44
$
150.41
$
105.87
Cost
Differential
($/
ton)
(
d)
$
25.95
$
20.30
$
9.74
Total
savings
(
bxd)
­­
$
8,323,773
$
5,881,326
$
2,559,846
$
16,764,945
Abatement
4.7%
$
391,217
$
276,422
$
120,313
$
787,952
R&
R
95.3%
$
7,932,556
$
5,604,903
$
2,439,533
$
15,976,992
Note:
The
exact
magnitude
of
the
savings
will
depend
on
the
quantity
of
waste
that
is
diverted
from
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills,
which
in
turn
will
depend
on
the
quantities
of
waste
being
generated
and
the
relative
costs
of
transport
and
disposal
to
MSW
and
C&
D
landfills
faced
by
the
individual
generator.

4.4
Costs
to
States
and
Territories
EPA
assumes,
for
purposes
of
this
analysis,
that
States
would
incur
the
costs
associated
with
a
typical
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
(
although
it
is
up
to
the
States
and
territories
to
decide
the
procedures
to
implement
the
rule).
In
previous
analyses,
EPA
has
estimated
that
the
costs
of
promulgating
a
simple
rulemaking
at
the
State
level
(
EPA
1998).
States
are
assumed
to
incur
$
2,194
in
costs
for
preparing
a
written
amendment
to
their
RCRA
Subtitle
D
rules,
$
90
in
costs
for
publishing
a
written
notice
of
the
proposed
amendment
requesting
comment,
and
$
4,000
in
costs
for
holding
a
public
hearing
on
the
amendment.
As
shown
in
Table
4­
9,
the
total
cost
per
State
is
estimated
at
$
6,284.
Since
49
States
and
territories
operate
EPA­
approved
MSW
permitting
programs,
the
total
cost
to
States
of
implementing
the
rule
is
$
307,916.
34
EPA
emphasizes
that
there
is
no
federal
mandate
requiring
States
and
territories
to
adopt
these
changes
into
their
RCRA
Subtitle
D
programs.
Since
the
changes
will
provide
the
States
with
greater
flexibility
in
managing
residential
LBP
waste
and
reduce
the
potential
for
confusion
over
the
regulatory
status
of
residential
LBP
waste,
EPA
assumes
that
most
States
will
undertake
this
revision,
even
if
it
involves
a
small,
but
not
insignificant,
regulatory
change
(
i.
e.,
an
estimated
$
6,284
per
State).

Table
4­
9.
Costs
to
States
and
Territories
of
Adopting
the
Final
Rule
Cost
Item
Amount
Drafting
written
regulatory
amendment
$
2,194
Public
notice
$
90
Public
hearing
$
4,000
Subtotal
$
6,284
Number
of
States/
territories
operating
approved
RCRA
Subtitle
D
programs
49
Total
costs
to
States
and
territories
$
307,916
Source
EPA
1998.
35
CHAPTER
FIVE
BENEFITS
ANALYSIS
The
previous
chapter
estimated
that
the
national
impact
of
the
Final
Rule
would
be
an
estimated
savings
in
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South
of
up
to
$
16.7
million
per
year
in
residential
LBP
waste
management
costs.
These
savings
will
accrue
to
those
who
pay
the
costs
of
residential
abatement
and
R&
R
activities,
who
will
pay
less
to
dispose
of
the
waste
generated
from
abatements
and
R&
R
projects.
As
seen
in
Table
4­
8,
the
majority
of
the
savings,
up
to
$
15.9
million
per
year,
will
accrue
to
those
undertaking
R&
R
projects,
while
a
lesser
amount,
up
to
$
784,471
per
year,
will
accrue
to
those
undertaking
LBP
abatements.

EPA
assumes
that
the
savings
accruing
to
those
undertaking
R&
R
projects
are
unlikely
to
be
used
to
undertake
further
projects
that
eliminate
LBP
from
housing.
Similarly,
savings
accruing
to
owners
of
private
housing
units
undergoing
abatement
are
unlikely
to
be
used
to
further
reduce
LBP
hazards.
In
the
case
of
public
housing,
however,
EPA
believes
that
any
savings
generated
as
a
result
of
this
action
are
in
fact
likely
to
be
directed
towards
further
reducing
exposure
to
lead.
Acting
through
HUD,
the
Federal
Government
pays
for
abatements
in
public
housing
under
the
Comprehensive
Improvement
Assistance
Program.
Funds
for
abatement
are
administered
by
public
housing
authorities
(
PHAs)
across
the
country.
These
agencies,
some
of
which
are
local
government
units,
generally
operate
with
an
annual
budget
dedicated
to
abating
lead
hazards
in
public
housing
developments.
Assuming
that
funding
to
PHAs
continues
at
the
same
level
and
costs
of
abatement
go
down,
cost
savings
realized
under
the
rule
can
be
directly
used
to
finance
additional
abatements.

To
estimate
the
number
of
additional
public
housing
abatements
that
will
potentially
result
from
this
Final
Rule,
EPA
first
assumes
that
the
savings
accruing
to
abatement
will
be
split
between
private
housing
owners
and
public
housing
owners
according
to
the
number
of
abatements
undertaken
by
each.
While
current
data
reviewed
for
this
analysis
do
not
provide
this
allocation,
estimates
developed
for
the
December
1998
proposed
rulemaking
indicated
that
in
1996
there
60.3
percent
of
abatements
took
place
in
private
housing
and
39.7
percent
took
place
in
public
housing
units
(
EPA
1998;
see
Table
2­
5).
Given
this,
the
share
of
savings
accruing
to
PHAs
can
also
be
estimated
at
39.7
percent,
which
translates
to
$
312,817
($
787,952
x
0.397).
These
savings
are
then
divided
by
the
average
cost
of
abatement
to
determine
the
increased
demand
for
public
housing
abatements.

The
current
average
cost
of
abatement
in
public
housing
units
is
estimated
to
range
from
$
2,300
to
$
5,000
(
EPA
1996a).
Using
the
midpoint
of
this
range,
$
3,650,
the
$
312,817
in
savings
will
fund
the
abatement
of
up
to
86
additional
units
per
year.
Table
5­
1
summarizes
these
calculations.
36
Table
5­
1.
Summary
of
Benefit
Estimates
Savings
accruing
to
abatement
$
787,952
Percent
of
abatements
occurring
in
public
housing
units
39.7%

Savings
accruing
to
owners
of
public
housing
units
$
312,817
Average
cost
of
public
housing
unit
abatement
$
3,650
Number
of
additional
abatements
that
can
be
financed
86
Sources:
Savings
accruing
to
abatement
are
calculated
in
Chapter
4
(
see
Table
4­
7).
The
percent
of
abatements
in
public
housing
and
average
cost
of
abatement
are
from
EPA
1998.
Note:
The
exact
magnitude
of
the
savings
will
depend
on
the
quantity
of
waste
that
is
diverted
from
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills,
which
in
turn
will
depend
on
the
quantities
of
waste
being
generated
and
the
relative
costs
of
transport
and
disposal
to
MSW
and
C&
D
landfills
faced
by
the
individual
generator.
37
CHAPTER
SIX
IMPACTS
OF
THE
ACTION
EPA's
estimates
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
this
action
are
undertaken
pursuant
to
Executive
Order
(
EO)
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review.
This
chapter
presents
additional
analyses
and
discussion
of
the
potential
impact
of
the
Final
Rule.
Specifically,
this
chapter
addresses
four
other
regulatory
assessment
provisions:

The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.)
and
its
subsequent
amendment
under
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
 
Under
these
two
legislative
actions,
EPA
is
required
to
determine
if
the
regulatory
action
would
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
where
entities
are
defined
as
businesses,
governmental
units,
or
organizations
(
e.
g.,
nonprofits
If
EPA
determines
that
the
action
would
have
such
an
impact,
the
Agency
is
required
to
performed
a
more
detailed
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis.

The
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)
(
P.
L.
104­
4)
 
This
legislative
action
requires
EPA
to
assess
the
potential
for
the
proposed
rule
to
impose
unfunded
mandates
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.

EO
12898,
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
 
Under
this
EO,
EPA
assesses
the
extent
to
which
regulatory
actions
impose
disproportionate
high
adverse
environmental
or
human
health
effects
on
minority
or
low­
income
populations.

EO
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
 
Under
this
EO,
EPA
identifies
and
assesses
environmental,
health,
and
safety
risks
that
may
disproportionately
affect
children.

Section
6.1
summarizes
the
impacts
of
the
Final
Rule.
Section
6.2
considers
the
impact
of
the
Final
Rule
on
small
entities
to
assist
EPA
in
determining
whether
there
is
a
need
for
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
in
accordance
with
the
RFA
and
the
SBREFA.
Section
6.3
addresses
burdens
on
governmental
entities
other
than
the
Federal
government,
in
accordance
with
UMRA.
Section
6.4
analyzes
the
environmental
justice
impacts
of
the
regulation
in
accordance
with
Executive
Order
12898.
Finally,
Section
6.5
addresses
the
impacts
of
the
Final
Rule
on
health
and
safety
risks
faced
by
children.
12http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
non­
hw/
muncpl/
factbook/
internet/
mswf/
disp.
htm#
3
13
The
SBREFA
law
was
passed
by
Congress
on
March
29,
1996.
Subtitle
D
of
SBREFA
amends
the
RFA
and
requires
agencies
to
prepare
more
detailed
analyses
of
regulatory
impacts
on
small
entities.
The
requirements
apply
to
rules
proposed
or
promulgated
after
June
28,
1996.

38
6.1
Summary
of
Impacts
The
Final
Rule
is
deregulatory
in
nature
and
will
impose
no
incremental
costs
on
private
entities
nor
any
new
direct
costs
on
governments.
The
principal
impact
of
the
action
will
be
to
reduce
the
disposal
costs
for
generators
of
residential
LBP
waste.
The
exact
magnitude
of
the
savings
will
depend
on
how
much
LBP
waste
disposal
will
be
diverted
from
MSW
landfills
to
C&
D
landfills,
which
in
turn
will
depend
on
the
relative
costs
of
each
disposal
option
faced
by
generators.
EPA
estimates
the
potential
magnitude
of
the
savings
at
up
to
$
0.79
million
per
year
for
generators
of
residential
LBP
abatement
waste
and
up
to
$
15.98
million
per
year
for
generators
of
residential
R&
R
waste,
for
a
total
combined
savings
estimated
at
up
to
$
16.76
million
per
year.

The
$
16.76
million
in
potential
annual
savings
are
estimated
to
accrue
in
regions
of
the
country
where
the
total
cost
of
hauling
and
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste
to
C&
D
landfills
is
lower
than
the
total
cost
of
hauling
and
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
MSWLFs.
Based
on
regional
cost
data,
EPA
estimates
that
costs
will
generally
be
reduced
in
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South
regions.
In
other
regions,
specifically
the
West,
costs
for
disposal
to
C&
D
landfills
are
estimated
to
be
higher
than
the
costs
for
disposal
to
MSW
landfills.
As
a
result,
the
Final
Rule
is
not
predicted
to
lead
to
shifts
in
disposal
in
this
region.

The
total
quantity
of
waste
estimated
to
potentially
shift
from
MSWLFs
to
C&
D
landfills
is
0.87
million
tons
per
year.
In
2000,
the
United
States
was
expected
to
dispose
of
119.0
million
tons
of
waste
in
MSWLFs.
12
The
quantity
of
waste
that
would
potentially
be
diverted
thus
represents
less
than
0.73
percent
of
the
total
municipal
solid
waste
stream.

6.2
Small
Entity
Impact
Analysis
EPA
considered
the
potential
adverse
impacts
of
the
Final
Rule
on
small
entities,
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
and
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA).
13
Both
the
RFA
and
SBREFA
require
EPA
to
determine
whether
rulemakings
may
result
in
substantial
adverse
impacts
on
a
significant
number
of
small
entities,
and
if
so,
to
tailor
the
requirements
so
as
to
mitigate
such
impacts,
while
still
achieving
a
high
level
of
environmental
protection.
39
Based
on
the
cost
analysis
of
this
report,
it
was
determined
that
the
Final
Rule
imposes
no
incremental
costs
or
other
burdens
on
small
entities.
EPA
has
determined
that
a
formal
small
entity
analysis
was
not
required
for
this
action.

6.4
Unfunded
Mandates
Analysis
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
P.
L.
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.

The
Final
Rule
imposes
no
direct
costs
on
State
and
local
governments
as
a
result
of
any
Federal
mandate.
Chapter
4
of
this
Economic
Analysis
estimates
that
States
and
territories
electing
to
implement
the
amendments
to
the
definitions
of
MSWLF,
C&
D
landfill,
and
residential
LBP
waste
may
do
so
in
order
to
obtain
greater
flexibility
in
managing
the
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
their
jurisdiction.
The
total
estimated
cost
of
implementing
these
changes
in
all
49
States
and
territories
with
approved
MSW
landfill
permitting
programs
is
$
307,916
(
see
Table
4­
8).
These
changes
are
voluntary,
however,
and
as
such
EPA
has
determined
that
the
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202,
204
and
205
of
UMRA.
Furthermore,
the
total
cost
of
these
changes
is
below
$
100
million
per
year,
which
is
the
threshold
for
conducting
the
unfunded
mandates
analysis.

6.5
Environmental
Justice
Analysis
Under
EO
12898,
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations,
EPA
assesses
the
extent
to
which
regulatory
actions
impose
disproportionate
adverse
high
environmental
or
human
health
effects
on
minority
or
lowincome
populations.

EPA
has
identified
no
aspects
of
the
Final
Rule
that
would
result
in
a
disproportionately
high
incidence
of
environmental
or
human
health
effects
associated
with
this
rulemaking.
On
the
contrary,
since
the
rule
would
reduce
the
cost
of
performing
LBP
abatements,
EPA
assumes
that
the
savings
will
afford
public
housing
authorities,
in
particular,
the
opportunity
to
conduct
additional
abatements
of
LBP
hazards
in
affected
housing
units.
Since
the
tenants
of
public
housing
units
are
more
likely
to
be
minority
and
lower­
income
households,
the
action
should
have
the
effect
of
providing
a
differential
benefit
to
such
populations.
40
6.6
Children's
Health
Analysis
Pursuant
to
EO
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks,
EPA
has
reviewed
the
Final
Rule
for
its
impacts
on
children's
health.
Although
EPA
has
determined
that
the
EO
does
not
apply
to
this
action,
the
rule
will
have
the
effect
of
reducing
the
risk
faced
by
individuals
who
are
exposed
as
children
in
public
housing
units
affected
by
the
action.
The
savings
from
this
action
are
estimated
to
be
sufficient
to
finance
an
additional
86
abatements
in
public
housing
units
annually.
41
CHAPTER
SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS
AND
SUMMARY
The
Final
Rule
is
deregulatory
in
nature
and
will
impose
no
incremental
costs
on
private
entities
nor
any
new
direct
costs
on
governments.
The
principal
impact
of
the
action
will
be
to
reduce
the
disposal
costs
for
generators
of
residential
LBP
waste.
The
exact
magnitude
of
the
savings
will
depend
on
how
much
LBP
waste
disposal
will
be
diverted
from
MSW
landfills
to
C&
D
landfills,
which
in
turn
will
depend
on
the
relative
costs
of
each
disposal
option
faced
by
generators.
EPA
estimates
the
potential
magnitude
of
the
savings
at
up
to
$
0.79
million
per
year
for
generators
of
residential
LBP
abatement
waste
and
up
to
$
15.98
million
per
year
for
generators
of
residential
R&
R
waste,
for
a
total
combined
savings
estimated
at
up
to
$
16.76
million
per
year.

The
$
16.76
million
in
potential
annual
savings
are
estimated
to
accrue
in
regions
of
the
country
where
the
total
cost
of
hauling
and
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste
to
C&
D
landfills
is
lower
than
the
total
cost
of
hauling
and
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste
in
MSWLFs.
Based
on
regional
cost
data,
EPA
estimates
that
costs
will
be
reduced
in
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South
regions.
In
the
West,
costs
for
disposal
to
C&
D
landfills
are
estimated
to
be
higher
than
the
costs
for
disposal
to
MSWLFs.
As
a
result,
the
authorization
of
residential
LBP
waste
disposal
to
C&
D
landfills
is
not
predicted
to
lead
to
shifts
in
disposal
in
this
region.

Of
the
$
16.76
million
in
potential
annual
savings,
$
0.79
million
will
accrue
to
generators
of
residential
LBP
abatement
waste
and
$
15.98
million
will
accrue
to
generators
of
residential
R&
R
waste.
EPA
assumes
that
only
the
savings
accruing
to
generators
of
LBP
waste
in
public
housing
are
likely
to
be
used
directly
to
fund
additional
LBP
hazard
reduction
activities,
since
public
housing
authorities
(
PHAs)
generally
operate
with
an
annual
budget
dedicated
to
abating
lead
hazards
in
public
housing
developments.
Assuming
that
funding
to
PHAs
continues
at
the
same
level
and
costs
of
abatement
go
down,
cost
savings
realized
under
this
action
can
be
directly
used
to
finance
additional
abatements.
The
magnitude
of
the
savings
expected
to
accrue
to
PHAs
is
$
0.31
million
per
year.
Given
an
average
abatement
cost
of
$
3,650,
these
savings
will
potentially
fund
the
abatement
of
an
additional
86
units
per
year.

The
total
quantity
of
waste
estimated
to
shift
from
MSW
to
C&
D
landfills
is
0.87
million
tons
per
year.
In
2000,
the
United
States
was
expected
to
dispose
of
119.0
million
tons
of
waste
in
MSWLFs.
The
quantity
of
waste
that
would
be
diverted
thus
represents
0.73
percent
of
the
total
municipal
solid
waste
stream.
42
CHAPTER
EIGHT
REFERENCES
Biocycle
2000.
"
The
State
of
Garbage
in
America."
BioCycle.
April.

Brumert
2001.
Telephone
communication
with
Paul
Brumert,
Waste
Management,
Inc.
March
8,
2001.

Bush
et
al.,
1997.
Robert
J.
Bush
and
Philip
A.
Araman.
"
Construction
and
Demolition
Landfills
and
Wood
Pallets
 
What's
Happening
in
the
U.
S.,"
Pallet
Enterprise,
March
1997.

Census
2000a.
Economic
Census,
1997.
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
2000.

Census
2000b.
American
Housing
Survey,
1997.
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
2000.

Census
2001a.
American
Housing
Survey,
1997:
National
Alterations,
Additions,
and
Repairs
Supplement.
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
2001.

Census
2001b.
"
Expenditures
for
Residential
Improvements
and
Repairs:
4th
Quarter
1999,"
Current
Construction
Reports
(
C50),
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
November
2000.

Chartwell
2000.
"
Solid
Waste
Price
Index,"
Solid
Waste
Digest.
Chartwell
Information
Publishers,
August.

Cotsworth
2000.
"
Regulatory
Status
of
Waste
Generated
by
Contractors
and
Residents
from
Lead­
Based
Paint
Activities
Conducted
in
Households."
Memorandum
from
Elizabeth
Cotsworth,
Director,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
to
RCRA
Senior
Policy
Advisors,
EPA
Regions
I­
X,
July
31,
2000.

Dacquisto,
D.
1996.
Personal
communication
with
D.
Dacquisto,
National
Association
of
Home
Builders
Research
Center,
May
1996.

EPA
1995a.
"
Assessment
of
Potential
Costs
and
Benefits
of
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
for
Industrial
Process
Wastes."
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Regulatory
Analysis
Branch,
September.

EPA
1995b.
"
Exemption
of
Lead­
Based
Paint
Architectural
Debris
from
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA:
Analysis
of
Costs,
Benefits,
and
Risks."
U.
S.
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Regulatory
Analysis
Branch.
September
11,
1995.
43
EPA
1995c.
"
Listing
of
Industrial
Waste
and
Construction
and
Demolition
Landfills
in
the
United
States,"
U.
S.
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste.

EPA
1996a.
"
TSCA
Title
IV
Sections
402(
a)
and
404:
Target
Housing
and
Child­
Occupied
Facilities
Final
Rule
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis,"
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Regulatory
Impacts
Branch,
August.

EPA
1996b.
"
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
Lead­
Based
Paint
Hazard
Disclosure
Regulation
for
Residential
Renovations,"
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Regulatory
Impacts
Branch,
December.

EPA
1998.
"
TSCA
Title
IV
Sections
402/
404:
Lead­
Based
Paint
Debris
Management
and
Disposal
Proposed
Rule
Economic
Analysis."
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Economic
and
Policy
Analysis
Branch,
September
24,
1998.

EPA
2000.
Abt
Associates,
Inc.
"
National
Abatement
Estimates."
Memorandum
from
Penny
Schafer
and
Daniel
Rosenfeld,
Abt
Associates,
to
Rob
Beekman,
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Economic
and
Policy
Analysis
Branch,
September
20.

EPA
2001.
National
Estimates
for
LBP
Frequency
in
Pre­
1978
Housing
Units.
Rob
Beekman
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Economic
and
Policy
Analysis
Branch,
2001.

FR,
1990.
Federal
Register,
April
18,
1990,
14557­
14789.

HUD
2001.
National
Survey
of
Lead
and
Allergens
in
Housing,
Final
Report,
Volume
1:
Analysis
of
Lead
Hazards,
January
12,
2001.
U.
S.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development.

HUD
1990.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development.
"
Comprehensive
and
Workable
Plan
for
the
Abatement
of
Lead­
Based
Paint
in
Privately
Owned
Housing:
Report
to
Congress."
Office
of
Policy
Development
and
Research,
December
1990.

Joint
Center
2001.
Joint
Center
for
Housing
Studies
of
Harvard
University.
"
Remodeling
Homes
for
Changing
Households."..

Marchaterre,
M.
1996.
Personal
communication
with
M.
Marchaterre,
ERG,
Inc.,
May
1996.

Means
2001.
RS
Means
Building
Construction
Cost
Data.
59th
Annual
Edition.

Task
Force
2000.
President's
Task
Force
on
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
to
Children.
Eliminating
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning:
A
Federal
Strategy
Targeting
Lead
Paint
Hazards.
February
2000.