UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Comment
and
Response
Document
Docket
Number
F­
2001­
LBPF­
FFFFF
Criteria
for
Classification
of
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Facilities
and
Practices
and
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills:
Disposal
of
Residential
lead­
Based
Paint
Waste
February
4,
2003
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
Criteria
for
Classification
of
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Facilities
and
Practices
and
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills:
Disposal
of
Residential
Lead­
Based
Paint
Waste
Comment
number:
LBPP­
00001
Commenter:
Thom
Snyder
Category:
Individual
Comment:
Thank
you
for
extending
the
residential
Lead­
Based
Paint
(
LBP)
waste
provisions
to
include
construction
&
demolition
(
C&
D)
landfills.
This
makes
sense
for
larger
scale
residential
renovations,
where
commercial
dumpsters
may
be
used.
C&
D
landfills
are
adequately
lined
and
protected
to
prevent
leaching
of
lead.
This
is
a
move
in
the
right
direction.
Inclusion
of
the
C
&
D
landfills
is
a
common
sense
and
cost
effective
proposal
for
the
disposal
of
residential
LBP
waste,
which
is
still
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
comment.

Comment
number:
LBPP­
00002
Commenter:
GA
Environmental
Protection
Division,
Land
Protection
Branch
Category:
State
Comment:
The
Georgia
Environmental
Protection
Division
(
EPD)
Land
Protection
Branch
has
reviewed
the
proposed
rule
for
disposal
of
residential
lead­
based
paint
waste.
While
this
proposed
rule
does
offer
a
positive
interpretation
by
allowing
lead­
based
paint
abatement
waste
from
residential
structures
into
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
and
construction
demolition
(
C&
C)
landfills,
Georgia
EPD
believes
a
significant
flaw
exists
with
this
proposed
rule.
This
comments
offers
to
explain
Georgia
EPD's
opposition
and
offers
to
provide
a
more
meaningful
solution
to
this
disposal
dilemma.

The
decision
to
include
lead­
based
paint
(
LBP)
waste
types
such
as
chips,
dust
and
sludges
(
Section
VI.
C.
Addition
of
Residential
Lead­
based
paint
Waste
Definition,
second
paragraph)
in
C&
D
landfills
overlooks
a
C&
D
landfill
trait.
EPA
failed
to
take
into
consideration
in
the
Section
VII.
Analytic
Basis
for
Today's
Proposed
Rule,
the
potential
for
sheet,
surface
water
or
windborne
movement
of
lead
paint
chips,
dust
and
sludges
off
site
from
a
C&
D
landfill.
C&
D
landfills
in
Georgia,
and
elsewhere,
are
only
required
to
be
covered
by
earth
every
thirty
(
30)
days.
The
placement
of
LBP
dust,
chips
and/
or
sludges
to
an
open
environment
over
an
extended
period
of
time
(
up
to
30
days)
may
allow
a
significant
rain
or
wind
event
to
transport
lead­
containing
materials
off
site.
Such
an
occurrence
may
cause
an
adverse
environmental
or
human
health
impact
to
surrounding
lands
and
habitats.
The
analytic
basis
used
by
EPA
to
justify
the
placement
of
chips,
dust
and
sludges
in
C&
D
landfills
was
based
only
upon
the
leachate
analysis
used
to
simulate
the
movement
of
lead
through
the
ground
water
system
of
the
landfill.
Sudden
intense
rain
events,
or
winds
above
20
to
25
miles
per
hour
can
readily
transport
lead­
containing
wastes
off
site
by
surface
water
or
air
currents.

Response:
It
is
true
that
only
ground
water
impacts
were
evaluated,
however,
given
EPA's
knowledge
of
handling
practices
(
i.
e.,
paint
chips
and
dust
are
managed
in
plastic
bags),
the
Agency
saw
no
need
to
take
into
consideration
the
potential
for
sheet,
surface
water
wind­
borne
movement
of
paint
chips
and
dust.

Comment:
Requiring
daily
cover
for
such
lead
waste
disposal,
or
special
packaging
at
C&
D
landfills
of
the
above
mentioned
wastes
would
mitigate
the
potential
for
adverse
impact
from
surface
water
or
air
transport.
This
type
of
special
handling
is
characteristic
of
asbestos
disposal
requirements.
In
lieu
of
those
type
requirements,
lead
dust,
chips,
sludges
and
contaminated
soil
should
only
be
allowed
to
be
placed
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
where
cover
of
waste
is
applied
daily.

The
volume
of
LBP
waste
from
lead
dust,
chips,
sludges,
and
contaminated
soil
from
residential
projects
is
believes
to
be
small
in
comparison
to
the
volume
generated
by
architectural
components
from
LBP
abatement.
Georgia
EPD
has
no
objection
to
these
architectural
components
being
disposed
in
a
C&
D
landfill.
The
minor
extra
cost
to
require
such
waste
to
be
disposed
into
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
versus
and
C&
D
landfill
is
worth
the
added
environmental
protection
benefit.

Georgia
EPD
respectfully
submits
this
comment
and
requests
modification
of
the
proposed
Rule
in
a
manner
that
reflects
better
environmental
controls
regarding
the
disposal
of
LBP
chips,
dust,
sludges,
and
contaminated
soil
in
the
C&
D
landfills.

Response:
First,
EPA
notes
that
today's
rule
only
addresses
residential
LBP
waste,
i.
e.,
LBP
waste
that
is
excluded
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
as
"
household
waste"
pursuant
to
40
C.
F.
R.
261.4(
b)(
1).
LBP
waste
from
sources
other
than
residences
that
meets
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
(
e.
g.
exhibits
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
lead)
must
be
managed
under
Subtitle
C
and
is
not
affected
by
today's
rule.
Similarly,
LBP
waste
that
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste,
whether
from
residential
or
non­
residential
sources,
has
been
allowed
to
be
disposed
in
RCRA
Subtitle
D
facilities,
including
C&
D
landfills,
and
is
not
the
subject
of
today's
rule.

Existing
requirements
applicable
to
C&
D
landfills
serve
to
mitigate
potential
impacts
from
surface
water
or
air
transport,
thus
the
Agency
does
not
agree
that
requirements
for
daily
cover
or
special
packaging
are
needed
on
the
federal
level.
Surface
water
transport
off­
site
by
sudden
intense
rain
events
would
likely
constitute
"
non­
point
source"
pollution
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
To
mitigate
potential
surface
water
impacts,
C&
D
landfills
must
comply
with
40
CFR
257.3­
3(
c),
which
requires
that
a
facility
or
practice
shall
not
cause
non­
point
source
pollution
that
violates
legal
requirements
implementing
an
areawide
or
statewide
water
quality
management
plan
approved
by
EPA
under
the
Clean
water
Act.

To
further
mitigate
potential
water
or
air
transport,
both
EPA
and
HUD
have
issued
guidance
for
LBP
waste
management
calling
for
the
containment
of
LBP
wastes
in
plastic
with
sealed
seams.
EPA's
"
Reducing
Lead
Hazards
When
Remodeling
Your
Home"
EPA
747­
K­
97­
001
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
lead/
rrpamph.
pdf)
and
EPA's
Model
Renovation
Training
Course
EPA
747­
B­
00­
005/
6
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opptintr/
lead/
rrmodel.
htm)
both
call
for
safe
and
secure
disposal.
Safe
and
secure
disposal
involves
placing
the
LBP
wastes
in
plastic
(
4­
6
mil
poly)
bags
that
are
sealed
closed.
HUD
modified
the
EPA
training
course
and
developed
their
own
training
program
to
serve
the
specific
needs
of
HUD's
constituents.
The
HUD
training
course
entitled
"
Addressing
Lead­
Based
Paint
Hazards
During
Renovation,
Remodeling
and
Rehabilitation
in
Federally
Owned
and
Assisted
Housing"
(
also
referred
to
as
"
The
3R
Course")
(
http://
www.
hud.
gov/
offices/
lead/
training/
3r/
3r_
course.
cfm)
was
first
delivered
to
remodeling
and
rehabilitation
workers
during
HUD's
nationwide
training
initiative
in
2001­
2002.
HUD's
training
also
recommends
that
safe
disposal
be
accomplished
by
means
of
plastic
bags.
Other
HUD
brochures
and
documents
also
recommend
that
LBP
wastes
be
placed
in
plastic
bags
for
safe
disposal.
These
brochures
include:
"
Lead
Paint
Can
Poison:
Is
Your
Family
at
Risk?"
(
http://
www.
hud.
gov/
offices/
lead/
outreach/
parents.
pdf)
"
Lead
Paint
Safety­
A
Field
Guide
for
Painting,
Home
Maintenance,
and
Renovation
Work"
(
http://
www.
hud.
gov/
offices/
lead/
training/
LBPguide.
pdf)
"
Caution:
Lead
Paint
Handle
With
Care"
(
http://
www.
hud.
gov/
offices/
lead/
outreach/
tradesOKAYTOPRINT.
pdf)
"
Lead
Paint
Can
Poison:
Protect
Your
Family
When
You
Repaint
or
Remodel".
(
http://
www.
hud.
gov/
offices/
lead/
outreach/
remodel.
pdf)

HUD
also
operates
the
Lead­
Based
Paint
Hazard
Control
Grant
Program
that
has
as
its
primary
purpose
to
reduce
the
exposure
of
young
children
to
lead­
based
paint
hazards
in
their
homes.
The
program
provides
grants
to
State
and
local
governments
for
control
of
lead­
based
paint
hazards
in
privately
owned,
low
income
owner­
occupied
and
rental
housing.
These
grants
are
designed
to
stimulate
the
development
of
a
trained
and
certified
hazard
evaluation
and
control
industry.
Evaluation
and
hazard
control
work
under
the
program
must
be
conducted
by
either
contractors
who
are
certified
and
workers
who
are
trained
through
a
State­
accredited
program
or
by
contractors
trained
in
lead­
safe
work
practices
in
the
case
of
interim
controls.

As
of
March
1,
2000.
Lead
service
providers
within
the
United
States
must
be
certified
(
or
licensed)
under
a
EPA
authorized
lead
program.
Most
of
the
States
have
developed
and
are
administering
such
a
program
and
EPA
certifies
lead
service
providers
in
states
that
do
not
have
their
own
programs.
As
of
January
2003,
38
States
had
EPA­
approved
state
lead
programs
that
actively
certify
(
license)
lead
service
providers.

EPA
has
also
discussed
this
issue
with
the
National
Association
of
Demolition
Contractors
(
NADC).
NADC
re­
confirmed
EPA's
belief
that
paint
chips
and
dust
are
managed
in
plastic
bags.
NADC
stated
that
lead­
based
dust
is
removed
with
vacuums
with
HEPA
filters
and
that
the
vacuum
bags
are
removed
and
then
tied
closed
prior
to
disposal.
Paint
chips
that
may
fall
on
a
plastic
sheet
are
collected
in
the
plastic
sheet
which
is
than
placed
in
a
tied
plastic
bag.

As
stated
above,
the
EPA
believes
that
sufficient
guidance,
literature,
training
programs,
EPA­
approved
state
lead
programs,
and
current
practices
exist
so
that
whether
the
LBP
waste
is
in
the
form
of
chips
or
dust,
it
will
be
managed
appropriately
(
i.
e.,
containment
in
plastic
bags
on
site
prior
to
transport
to
disposal).
At
the
disposal
facility,
the
containment
plastic
serves
to
mitigate
against
potential
impacts
of
water
or
wind
transport.

Additionally,
where
water
or
wind
transport
are
problematic,
States
have
demonstrated
their
ability,
even
in
the
absence
of
a
federal
requirement,
to
impose
additional
requirements
for
weekly,
monthly,
or
daily
cover
as
necessary
to
control
particulate
releases.
According
to
the
1995
report,
"
Construction
and
Demolition
Waste
Landfills,"
14
States
require
on­
site
C&
D
units
to
provide
daily
cover
while
19
States
require
daily
cover
at
off­
site
C&
D
units.
Based
on
these
C&
D
landfill
features
and
LBP
waste
handling
practices,
the
Agency
does
not
believe
it
is
necessary
to
impose
on
the
federal
level
a
requirement
for
daily
cover
at
C&
D
landfills
receiving
LBP
waste.

Comment:
Georgia
EPA
has
coordinated
with
its
Lead­
Based
Paint
Program,
Solid
Waste
Management
Program,
and
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Compliance
Program
to
a
develop
new
guidance
document
entitle,
"
Georgia's
Lead­
Based
Paint
Waste
Disposal
Requirements."
This
new
guidance
document
was
published
October
31,
2001.
Much
thought
has
been
put
into
all
of
Georgia's
environmental
rules
that
govern
this
issue.
Currently,
Georgia
EPD
has
all
of
the
necessary
statutory
and
regulatory
authority
to
handle
lead­
based
paint
waste
in
the
manner
described
in
the
attached
guidance
document.

Response:
Because
today's
final
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
of
amending
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
would
be
required
to
notify
the
Regional
Administrator
of
the
modification
as
provided
by
40
CFR
239.12.
Whether
a
State
chooses
to
incorporate
today's
rule
into
its
solid
waste
program
has
no
effect
on
its
existing
status
with
respect
to
EPA
approval,
i.
e.,
State
revisions
will
not
open
previously
approved
solid
waste
programs
for
Federal
review.

Comment
number:
LBPP­
00003
Commenter:
National
Association
of
Home
Builders
(
NAHB)
Category:
Trade
Association
Comment:
NAHB
supports
the
proposed
rule
and
direct
final
rule
that
are
the
subject
of
these
comments
because
EPA
has
addressed
many
of
our
previous
concerns
about
the
economic
feasibility
of
working
in
pre­
1978
buildings.

Several
commentors
stated
that
the
proposed
rule
was
not
sufficiently
clear
as
to
the
distinctions
between
those
LBP
activities
that
generate
waste
that
would
qualify
as
"
residential
LBP
waste"
(
e.
g.
abatement,
rehabilitation,
renovation,
and
remodeling")
and
those
that
would
not
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
rule
(
e.
g.,
"
demolition
and
deconstruction").
One
of
these
commentors
stated
that
the
regulated
community
might
believe
that
there
is
some
deconstruction
or
demolition
occurring
whenever
you
perform
rehabilitation,
renovation,
remodeling,
and
perhaps
to
some
extent
abatement.
The
commentor
suggested
that
the
focus
of
the
final
rule
be
on
waste
type
and
not
waste
activity.

Response:
The
Agency
distinguishes
demolition
and
deconstruction
activities
from
abatement,
rehabilitation,
renovation,
and
remodeling
on
the
basis
that
demolition
and
deconstruction
result
in
elimination
of
the
residential
structure,
while
the
residential
structure
remains
where
the
other
listed
activities
are
conducted.
The
proposed
definition
of
residential
lead
based
paint
waste
does
not
include
residential
demolition
and
deconstruction
activities.
The
proposed
definition
was
limited
to
waste
that
would
be
required
to
be
managed
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA
except
that
it
is
subject
to
the
household
waste
exclusion
in
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
1).
The
Agency
has
applied
two
criteria
to
define
the
scope
of
the
exclusion:
(
1)
the
waste
must
be
generated
by
individuals
on
the
premises
of
a
household,
and
(
2)
the
waste
must
be
composed
primarily
of
materials
found
in
the
wastes
generated
by
consumers
in
their
homes
(
49
FR
44978
and
63
FR
70241).
In
the
case
of
LBP
wastes,
we
have
determined
that
demolition
and
deconstruction,
which
result
in
the
elimination
of
the
household
structure,
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
household
waste
exclusion
and
therefore
are
not
included
in
the
definition
of
some
of
"
residential
LBP
waste."
Although
demolition
activities
and
renovation
activities
may
produce
some
of
the
same
type
of
waste,
the
waste
type
is
not
a
factor
for
consideration
under
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
1),
and
therefore,
today's
final
rule
continues
to
read
as
proposed.
The
Agency
wants
to
make
it
clear
that
deconstruction
and
demolition
wastes
can
continue
to
be
placed
in
construction
and
demolition
waste
landfills
provided
that
these
types
of
wastes
do
not
fail
the
TCLP
test
(
i.
e.,
are
not
considered
a
hazardous
waste).

Comment
number:
LBPP­
00004
Commenter:
Construction
&
Demolition
Association
of
OH
Category:
Trade
Association
Comment:
One
commenter
objected
to
the
proposed
definition
of
"
construction
and
demolition
waste
landfill"
because
the
proposed
rule
would
define
a
C&
D
waste
landfill
as
one
that
does
not
receive
"
industrial
wastes"
as
defined
in
40
CFR
section
258.2.
The
commenter
objected
because
the
definition
as
proposed
would
preclude
a
C&
D
landfill
that
receives
industrial
waste
in
the
form
of
manufacturer's
"
off­
spec,"
rejected,
or
damaged
construction
materials
from
accepting
residential
LBP
waste.
Thus
C&
D
landfills
in
the
state
would
have
to
elect
to
receive
residential
LPB
waste
or
"
off­
spec,"
damaged,
or
rejected
construction
materials,
but
not
both.

Response:
In
the
proposed
definition
of
a
C&
D
waste
landfill,
the
Agency
stated
that
C&
D
waste
landfills
were
not
eligible
to
receive
"
industrial
solid
wastes
as
defined
in
40
CFR
258.2."
The
definition
of
"
industrial
solid
waste"
in
section
258.2
is
based
on
wastes
generated
by
particular
manufacturing
or
industrial
processes.
The
Agency
was
concerned
about
C&
D
waste
landfills
receiving
wastes
generated
by
manufacturing
or
industrial
processes
and,
as
such,
wrote
the
definition
to
exclude
such
wastes.
In
reality,
industrial
process
wastes
are
typically
managed
on­
site,
or
in
limited
cases,
sent
off­
site
to
private/
commercial
industrial
waste
facilities.
Industrial
process
wastes
should
not
be
received
for
disposal
at
a
C&
D
waste
landfill.
The
commenter
was
concerned
that
off­
spec
construction
products
(
e.
g.,
toilets
or
shingles)
would
not
be
allowed
in
a
C&
D
waste
landfill
because
of
the
proposed
definition;
however,
the
Agency
views
"
off­
spec,"
rejected,
or
damaged
construction
materials
as
virtually
identical
in
nature
to
the
type
of
waste
that
is
appropriately
received
at
a
C&
D
waste
landfill
and
are
not
"
industrial
solid
waste"
as
defined
at
40
CFR
258.2.
For
this
reason,
EPA
believes
that
industrial
waste
in
the
form
of
manufacturer's
"
off­
spec,"
rejected,
or
damaged
construction
materials
can
be
appropriately
placed
in
a
C&
D
landfill.
The
Agency
expects
that
States
would
exercise
judgement
in
what
is
considered
industrial
wastes
and
as
such,
does
not
intend
to
change
the
proposed
definition
of
construction
and
demolition
waste
landfill
because
of
this
comment.

Comment
number:
LBPP­
00005
Commenter:
Alliance
to
End
Childhood
Lead
Poisoning
Category:
Environmental
Coalition
Comment:
One
commenter
was
concerned
that
the
proposed
definition
of
residential
LBP
waste
could
create
confusion
about
the
scope
of
activities
that
are
considered
"
lead­
based
paint
activities"
under
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA).
The
residential
LBP
definition
states
that
the
LBP
activities
include
abatement,
rehabilitation,
renovation,
and
remodeling.
Regulations
promulgated
under
TSCA
define
"
lead­
based
paint
activities"
to
mean
lead
inspection,
risk
assessment
and
abatement
in
the
case
of
target
(
most
pre­
1978)
housing
(
see
40
CFR
745.223).
Renovation,
remodeling,
and
rehabilitation
are
not
considered
lead­
based
paint
activities
under
Title
X.
The
commenter
was
concerned
that
the
Agency
was
trying
to
change
the
scope
of
the
TSCA
regulation
under
the
proposed
RCRA
regulation.
The
commenter
suggested
that
the
term
lead­
based
paint
activities
be
deleted
and
replaced
with
the
phrase
"
activities
that
disturb
leadbased
paint."

Response:
The
Agency
did
not
intend
or
propose
to
change
the
scope
of
the
TSCA
regulation
in
the
October
2001
proposal.
However,
to
eliminate
any
potential
confusion,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
change
the
definition
of
residential
LBP
wastes
to
eliminate
the
words
"
lead­
based
paint
activities."
A
new
definition
of
residential
LBP
wastes
is
included
in
today's
final
rule
that
does
not
use
the
term
"
lead­
based
paint
activities."
This
definition
is
as
follows:
"
Residential
lead­
based
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."

Comment
number:
LBPP­
00006
Commenter:
National
Association
of
Demolition
Contractors
Category:
Trade
Association
Comment:
Two
commenters
stated
that
lead­
based
paint
architectural
debris
generated
from
all
structures,
commercial
and
industrial
as
well
as
residential,
can
safely
be
disposed
of
in
C&
D
landfills
and
Subtitle
D
facilities.
The
commenter
disagreed
with
the
Agency's
statement
in
the
preamble
that
demolition
and
deconstruction
waste
was
not
similar
to
household
waste.
The
commenter
believe
that
LBP
material
handled
by
the
demolition
industry
in
commercial
and
industrial
structures
is
no
more
dangerous
to
public
health
and
the
environment
than
when
LBP
appears
in
a
residential
structure.

Response:
The
Agency
wishes
to
clarify
that
today's
final
rule
is
an
outgrowth
of
the
July
21,
2000
Memorandum
stating
that
waste
generated
as
a
result
of
LBP
activities
in
homes
and
other
residences
falls
within
the
exclusion
for
"
household
waste"
in
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
1).
(
See
66
FR
53569.)
The
scope
of
this
rulemaking
concerns
only
the
residential
LBP
wastes
and
not
LBP
wastes
from
commercial
and
industrial
structures
because
LBP
waste
from
commercial
and
industrial
does
not
fall
within
the
exclusion
for
"
household
waste"
in
40
CFR
261.4(
b)(
1)
or
the
definition
of
"
household
waste"
in
40
CFR
258.2.
Thus,
residential
LBP
waste
that
would
otherwise
be
hazardous
waste
subject
to
the
hazardous
waste
management
requirements
of
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA
can
be
managed
under
Subtitle
D
of
RCRA.
The
purpose
of
this
rulemaking
is
to
expand
Subtitle
D
disposal
options
for
this
particular
household
waste,
which,
without
today's
rule
could
only
be
disposed
of
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
pursuant
to
40
CFR
258.
The
July
31,
2000
Memorandum
did
not
affect
the
regulatory
status
of
nonresidential
LBP
waste,
such
as
that
generated
during
the
abatement
or
renovation
and
remodeling
of
a
commercial
building.
"
Household
waste"
is
defined
as
"
any
material
(
including
garbage,
trash
and
sanitary
waste
in
septic
tanks)
derived
from
households
(
including
single
and
multiple
residences,
hotels
and
motels,
bunkhouses,
ranger
stations,
crew
quarters,
campgrounds,
picnic
grounds
and
day­
use
recreation
areas)."
The
Agency
recognizes
that
not
all
LBP
waste,
whether
from
residential,
commercial,
or
industrial
sources,
is
"
hazardous
waste"
which
must
be
managed
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
Any
LBP
waste
that
is
not
hazardous
waste
can
be
safely
disposed
of
in
a
Subtitle
D
landfill,
including
a
C&
D
waste
landfill.

Comment
number:
LBPP­
00007
Commenter:
ASTSWMO
Category:
Trade
Association
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
definition
of
a
C&
D
landfill
as
currently
proposed
could
be
interpreted
to
mean
that
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
waste
can
be
accepted
in
a
40
CFR
part
257
Subpart
A
facility.
The
commenter
suggested
a
wording
change
to
eliminate
this
possible
misinterpretation.

Response:
EPA
does
not
intend
that
a
C&
D
landfill
be
allowed
to
receive
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
wastes
if
the
C&
D
landfill
meets
the
requirement
of
40
CFR
part
257
Subpart
A,
but
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
part
257,
Subpart
B.
Therefore,
the
Agency
has
changed
the
definition
of
C&
D
waste
landfill
to
eliminate
any
potential
confusion.
The
definition
has
been
changed
to
clarify
that
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
wastes
can
only
be
disposed
of
in
a
C&
D
landfill
that
meets
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
257,
Subpart
B.
Commenter
LBPP­
00007
also
stated
that
it
is
important
that
EPA
be
explicit
that
States
are
not
required
to
amend
their
programs
to
incorporate
today's
rule,
however,
the
commenter
also
suggested
language
to
assure
States
that
their
prior
approved
programs
will
not
be
reopened
regardless
of
whether
they
adopt
today's
rule
or
not.
EPA
agrees
with
the
comment
and
has
revised
the
language
in
Section
V.
of
today's
preamble
to
provide
clarity.

Comment
number:
LBPP­
00008
Commenter:
Battery
council
International
Category:
Trade
Association
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
EPA
had
missed
a
golden
opportunity
to
provide
a
similar
opportunity
for
disposal
of
lead­
contaminated
soils
and
requested
that
EPA
move
expeditiously
to
craft
a
rule
to
allow
lead­
contaminated
soils
to
be
disposed
of
in
C&
D
and
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
The
commenter
claimed
that
the
disposal
of
lead­
contaminated
soils
in
C&
D
landfills
and
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
is
more
environmentally
safer
than
the
disposal
of
LBP
debris.
The
commenter
argued
that
the
cost
of
managing
these
soils
that
fail
the
TCLP
under
RCRA
hazardous
waste
requirements
discourages
soil
lead
abatement
from
residences.

Response:
Today's
rulemaking
is
limited
to
providing
the
C&
D
landfill
disposal
option
for
residential
LBP
waste
addressed
in
the
July
31,
2000
Memorandum.
Lead­
contaminated
soils
were
not
included
in
the
July
31,
2000
Memorandum,
thus
EPA
is
not
addressing
disposal
of
leadcontaminated
soils
at
this
time.
