



                 Planning for Natural Disaster Debris Guidance
                     Comment Summary and Response Document












US EPA
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0657 
November 2018

INTRODUCTION
On April 27, 2018, EPA released three draft documents for public comment: 1) Planning for Natural Disaster Debris guidance ("PNDD"); 2) Pre-incident All-hazards Waste Management Plan Guidelines: Four-step Waste Management Planning Process ("4 Steps Document"); and 3) All-hazards Waste Management Decision Diagram ("Decision Diagram"). The comment period for these documents concluded on June 26, 2018. During that time, EPA received a total of 12 comments -- 6 general comments (i.e., comments that apply to all 3 documents or are not addressed to a particular document, including comments that are deemed to be outside the scope of these documents), 5 comments on the PNDD, 0 comments on the 4 Steps Document, and 1 comment on the Decision Diagram. This Comment Summary and Response Document addresses each of these comments individually. EPA's summary of the comment is presented followed by EPA's response. The comments are organized in the following manner:

      General Comments (page 2)
            Comment #0008: Anonymous public comment (page 2)
            Comment #0009: Anonymous public comment (page 2)
      Comment #0011: Anonymous public comment (page 2)
            Comment #0012: J. Castro (page 2)
            Comment #0013: Anonymous public comment (page 2)
            Comment #0015: Environmental Waste Systems (EWS) (page 3)
      
      PNDD
            Comment #0014: North Carolina Health Hazards Control Unit (NC HHCU) (page 3)
            Comment #0016: Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) (page 3)
            Comment #0017: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) (page 4)
            Comment #0018: Anonymous public comment (page 5)
            Comment #0019: Anonymous public comment (page 5)
      
      Decision Diagram
            Comment #0010: Anonymous public comment (page 5)

INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE

General Comments
Comment #0008: Anonymous public comment
   
   Summary: The commenter expressed general opposition to the President.
   
   Response: EPA believes this comment is outside the scope of these documents.

Comment #0009: Anonymous public comment
   
   Summary: The commenter does not support providing tax credits and subsidies for renewable energy projects to wealthy businesses.
   
   Response: EPA believes this comment is outside the scope of these documents.

Comment #0011: Anonymous public comment
   
   Summary: In light of the natural disasters of 2017 and the debris they generated, the commenter supports providing updated guidance on planning for natural disaster debris. The guidance can help communities prepare for and recover from future natural disasters.
   
   Response: EPA appreciates the comments in support of the Planning for Natural Disaster Debris and Related Guidance.

Comment #0012: J. Castro
   
   Summary: The commenter supports providing updated guidance on planning for natural disaster debris to help reduce the impacts of natural disasters and help communities recover faster. 
   
   Response: EPA appreciates the comments in support of the Planning for Natural Disaster Debris and Related Guidance.

Comment #0013: Anonymous public comment
   
   Summary: The commenter does not want EPA to withdraw regulations on disaster planning that are designed to make first responders, plant workers, and citizens living near chemical plants safer in the event of a disaster. 
   
   Response: EPA agrees that planning for disasters can help improve public safety. EPA wants to take this opportunity to clarify that this action does not withdraw regulations but rather sought public comments on EPA's updated Planning for Natural Disaster Debris guidance and two related documents on all-hazards waste management before they were finalized and issued.  
   
Comment #0015: Environmental Waste Systems (EWS)

   Summary: The commenter states that the use of innovative technologies during disaster responses could reduce the costs associated with managing disaster debris and increase environmental protection but notes that EPA's current policy does not allow for the injection of innovative technology into the process. The commenter requests that EPA include opportunities for using innovative technology in its policy.
   
   Response: All disaster debris should be managed, including its staging, sampling, characterization, packaging, transportation, reuse, recycling, treatment, and disposal, in accordance with all applicable federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal laws and regulations. While EPA can provide support and technical assistance, emergency planners and responders and other individuals involved in the management of disaster debris decide how disaster debris is to be specifically managed in accordance with existing requirements, including which technologies should be used. Therefore, EPA is making no changes to these documents in response to this comment.    


PNDD

Comment #0014: North Carolina Health Hazards Control Unit (NC HHCU)
   
   Summary: NC HHCU, which administers the federal National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in North Carolina, requested that EPA insert in the discussion on construction and demolition debris (C&D Debris) in the "Reuse and Recycling by Debris Stream" section a reference back to the section on NESHAP and a statement to contact the state or local agency regarding asbestos-related issues before recycling large quantities of C&D Debris resulting from a disaster.
   
   Response: EPA agrees and incorporated appropriate language in the guidance in response to these comments. 

Comment #0016: Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO)
   
   Summary: ASTSWMO's Materials Management Subcommittee appreciates EPA's update to its 2008 guidance. ASTSWMO recommends that EPA continue to encourage the consideration of non-disposal options for disaster debris and work with FEMA to ensure that FEMA's public assistance and related guidance reference EPA's guidance. In addition, ASTSWMO suggests that EPA verify and correct, as needed, the links in the PNDD, including one from ASTSWMO. 
   
   Response: EPA thanks ASTSWMO for their support and agrees with their recommendations. EPA deleted the reference to the 2009 list of state solid waste management plans, as requested. 

Comment #0017: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)

   Summary: USWAG urges EPA to provide clarity and regulatory relief to utilities in the context of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) cleanup and disposal after a natural disaster, when compliance with certain federal requirements governing PCB waste may not be practicable or achievable during a disaster response. Specifically, USWAG requests that EPA include in the PNDD a PCB cleanup and disposal guidance template that can be quickly adapted and issued, as appropriate, by EPA Regions after a natural disaster. The template would ensure that consistent PCB cleanup and disposal guidance is applied to every disaster in every region, as appropriate. In addition, while USWAG appreciates the inclusion of a discussion in the PNDD on the PCB guidance that was issued by EPA Regions 6 and 4 in connection with Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, respectively, USWAG requests that EPA acknowledge that these guidance documents provided nearly identical substantive relief that would also be appropriate and applicable to other natural disasters. USWAG notes that the current region-by-region, storm-by-storm approach that EPA has with respect to the issuance of PCB guidance has the potential to create confusion where multiple EPA Regions are affected, can divert critical agency and utility resources from disaster responses, and is unnecessary because the disaster-specific guidance documents that have been issued by different EPA Regions are very similar in substance. 
   
   Response: EPA thanks USWAG for their thoughtful comments on EPA's update of its PNDD guidance. USWAG expressed in detail their appreciation for EPA's 2005 and 2017 guidance memoranda, which allowed for limited, temporary modifications to the PCB spill cleanup policy in response to specific natural disasters. EPA agrees that these storm-related modifications were necessary and appropriate in light of storm-specific conditions and considerations. EPA is open to issuing similar storm-specific guidance in the future when the specific circumstances warrant additional flexibility in accordance with applicable provisions of the PCB regulations, including 40 CFR 761.61 (providing for temporary emergency measures), 761.120(a)(4), and 761.125(b)(2) and (c)(1).  
   
   The content of these guidance memoranda varies for each disaster -- for instance, guidance memoranda which rely on 40 CFR 761.120(a)(4) must be based upon "factors associated with the particular spill." Although EPA acknowledges that a template could expedite EPA's drafting of such storm-specific guidance, decisions regarding the contents of any potential future guidance memoranda will be made on a case-by-case basis amongst EPA Headquarters and the EPA Region(s) in which the disaster occurs. Publishing a template for disasters that have not yet occurred would likely lead to problematic presumptions on the part of the public and regulated entities that all modifications listed in the template would be available for all manner of natural disasters. Finally, such a template is beyond the scope of the PNDD guidance. A template covering disaster management of PCBs under federally implemented regulations would be out of place in a guidance aimed at state, local, and tribal governments, where PCBs are one of many contaminants of concern. EPA appreciates USWAG's feedback and will continue to discuss the comments internally.
   
   For reference -- 40 CFR 761.120(a)(4): "There may also be exceptional spill situations that requires less stringent cleanup or a different approach to cleanup because of factors associated with the particular spill. These factors may mitigate expected exposures and risks or make cleanup to these requirements impracticable."
   
Comment #0018: Anonymous public comment
   
Summary: The commenter requests that EPA include "contaminated soil" as a type of debris in the PNDD, noting that recent wildfires in California that destroyed structures generated significant amounts of contaminated soil that needed to be managed.
   
   Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that "contaminated soil" should be added as a separate debris stream. "Soils, sediments, and sandbags" is already listed as a potential debris stream in the PNDD. In addition, the guidance provides a detailed discussion of soils, sediments, and sandbags in the "Reuse and Recycling by Debris Stream" section, which acknowledges the potential for contamination. However, in response to this comment, EPA added "ash" to the list of debris streams that can be generated by natural disasters. Ash may be a major debris stream, as demonstrated by recent wildfires in California. Because any debris stream can be contaminated as a result of a natural disaster and ash may not always contain contamination, EPA chooses not to describe this debris stream as "contaminated ash."

Comment #0019: Anonymous public comment

   Summary: The commenter asks EPA to specify that the amount of recyclable debris generated by wildfires that destroy structures can vary considerably, noting that separate wildfires in California, while similar, generated vastly different amounts of recyclable debris.
   
   Response: EPA agrees that the amount of debris from wildfires and other natural disasters that can be recycled varies disaster-to-disaster and depends on many factors. Therefore, EPA added this consideration to the PNDD guidance. 


Decision Diagram

Comment #0010: Anonymous public comment

   Summary: The commenter supports EPA's decision diagram as a simple way for individuals to understand the debris management process after a disaster and recommends that EPA assess the effectiveness of the decision diagram through test trials with ordinary people.
   
   Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support. While this decision diagram is intended to assist emergency planners and managers with the waste management decision-making process after a disaster occurs, EPA acknowledges that it can help others understand the waste-related considerations and decisions that make up the process. EPA does not believe that this diagram needs to be tested with the public but notes that this diagram has been reviewed by multiple federal agencies. EPA is confident that the diagram portrays many of the waste management decisions that are typically made during a response.

