13B_.1400_HearingOfficersReport

A-1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
Hearing Officer's Report of Proceedings of
Public Hearing and Comment Period
Readoption and Amendments to
15A NCAC 13B .1401 - .1410 Solid Waste Compost Facilities
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
September 12, 2019
Public Hearing
July 16, 2019
Raleigh, NC

F-IM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BASIC INFORMATION......................................................................................1
BACKGROUND..................................................................................................2
StakeholderProcess.........................................................................................2
Proposed Rule Readoption and Amendments.................................................2
Jurisdiction Regarding Compost Regulations.................................................5
REGULATORY IMPACT & FISCAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY......................6
PUBLIC COMMENTS & RESPONSES.............................................................6
HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 28
ATTACHMENTS.............................................................................................. 29
Hearing Officer Memorandum..................................................................... 30
Hearing Attendance Sheet............................................................................ 32
Hearing Officer Script.................................................................................. 34
Division of Waste Management Presentation .............................................. 38
Notice and Proposed Rule Text.................................................................... 45
Regulatory Impact & Fiscal Analysis........................................................... 61
Certification of Agency Head....................................................................... 79
FactSheet..................................................................................................... 82
Written Public Comments............................................................................. 86
Revised Proposed Rule Text....................................................................... 109

A-3
BASIC INFORMATION
Commission: North Carolina Environmental Management Commission ("EMU)
Committee: Groundwater and Waste Management Committee
Agency: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of
Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Title: Solid Waste Compost Facilities
Citations: 15A NCAC 13B .1401 - .1410
Description: It is the Division of Waste Management's responsibility to regulate
how solid waste is managed within the state under the statutory
authority of the Solid Waste Management Act, Article 9 of Chapter
130A of the North Carolina General Statutes. Specifically, the
Division of Waste Management ("DWM") regulates solid waste
compost facilities under G.S. 130A-294, 130A-309.03, 130A-
309.11, and 130A-309.29. Rules 15A NCAC 13B .1401-.1409
collectively establish standards for the production, classification,
allowable uses, and application rates of compost at solid waste
management facilities. Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1410 is a new rule
that establishes closure requirements for owners or operators of
permitted compost facilities. DWM readopts these rules under the
statutory authority of G.S. 15013-21.3A.
Agency Contact:
Jessica Montie
Environmental Program Consultant
[e-mail]
[phone]
Authority:
G.S. 130A-294; G.S. 130A-309.03; G.S. 130A-309.11; G.S. 130A-
309.29; G.S. 15013-21.3A
Statement of Necessity:
Rules 15A NCAC 18C .1401 - .1409 are proposed for readoption
in accordance with G.S. 15013-21.3A. Rule 15A NCAC 13B . 14 10
is proposed for adoption to address a need for solid waste compost
facility closure requirements.
Hearing Officer:
EMC Commissioner Shannon M. Arata
Comment Period:
June 17, 2019 to August 16, 2019
Public Hearing:
July 16, 2019
Comment Summary:
Two comments were received on the proposed rules at the public
hearing. These comments addressed the potential contamination of
solid waste compost feedstocks and finished products, facility

A-4
operations, training requirements, and the extended permit times.
Six sets of comments on a range of topics were received on the
proposed rules during the public comment period, and are included
as Appendix I.
Before the EMC for
Adoption: September 12, 2019
Proposed Effective
Date: November 1, 2019
BACKGROUND
Stakeholder Process
Before engaging in the readoption process for the 15A NCAC 13B rules, the Solid Waste
Section hosted a planning meeting and group session on January 20, 2017 to explain the
readoption process, tentative timetable, and the need for a collaborative stakeholder process. As a
result of this meeting and session, working groups were established to review rule sets of
substantial interest. The compost working group, comprised of the regulated community, met
five times during 2017 to discuss the readoption of the 15A NCAC 13B .1400 compost rules.
These discussions were focused on how to better clarify the rules and to address appropriate
modifications to existing rules. As a result, the proposed rule revisions reflect the feedback
received during this stakeholder process. More information about the meetings and attendees is
available at https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/solid-waste-section/rules-
review#compost.
Proposed Rule Readoption and Amendments
It is DWM's responsibility to regulate how solid waste' is managed within the state under
the statutory authority of the Solid Waste Management Act, Article 9 of Chapter 130A of the
North Carolina General Statutes.2 Specifically, the DWM regulates solid waste compost facilities
under G.S. 130A-294, 130A-309.03, 130A-309.11, and 130A-309.29.
State rules governing solid waste management are found in Title 15A, Subchapter 13B of
the North Carolina Administrative Code.3 Rules 15A NCAC 13B .1401-.1409 are proposed for
readoption pursuant to G.S. 15013-21.3A, and are required to be readopted by the April 30, 2021,
deadline established by the North Carolina Rules Review Commission ("RRC"). The RRC, in
'As defined in G.S. 130A-290(35).
2https://www.ncle g_gov/EnactedLe gislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_ 13 OA/Article_9.pd
f
3 hM2://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20qualit. /hqpter%2013%20-
%20solid%20waste%20management/subchapter%20b/subchapter%20b%20rules.pdf

A-5
consultation with DWM, also determined that these rules are "necessary with substantive public
interest. ,4 Collectively, these rules establish standards for the production, classification,
allowable uses, and application rates of compost at solid waste management facilities. In addition
to technical corrections, clarification of vague or unclear language, and removal of redundant or
unnecessary language, DWM proposes to make the following additional changes during this
readoption process:
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1401 establishes when a permit is needed to operate a solid waste
compost facility, and the deadlines for submitting an application for a new facility or renewing
an existing permit. This rule also extends the permit period from five year to ten years, and
establishes that a major permit modification may reset the permit renewal period for up to ten
years.
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1402 amends the criteria for small and large facilities, which are
classified based upon the types and amounts of composted materials as follows:
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Under 2 acres
Small
and
Under 2 acres and
Maximum 6000
Maximum 1000 cubic yards
cubic yards
Size
2 or more acres
Large
or
Over 2 acres or
Over 6000
Over 1000 cubic yards
cubic yards
Yard and garden waste
Waste low in
pathogens and
Silviculture waste
physical
contaminants
Untreated and unpainted
wood waste
Vegetative agricultural
Waste low in
waste
pathogens and
physical
contaminants
Pre -consumer meat -free
food processing waste
Relatively low in
Source -separated post -
physical
consumer food wastes
4 https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncoah/documents/Rules/RRC/15A NCAC_13B.pdf

FOR
contaminants,
Manures and other
but may have
agricultural waste
high levels of
pathogens
Meat
Industrial solid waste
Wastes
Wastewater treatment
contains
biosolids
physical
contaminants
Mixed municipal solid
and may
waste (proposed for
contain
deletion
pathogens
Post -collection separated
or processed waste
ro osed for deletion
Rule .1402(f) establishes which facilities are exempted from this Section. Rule .1402(g)
establishes which facilities are exempted from Rule .1405, and now includes the exemption for
composting at primary/secondary schools and summer camps/community gardens that currently
is codified in Rule .1409(d).
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1403 includes clarifying corrections to the language that
establishes the general prohibitions for solid waste compost facilities.
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1404 amends the siting and design requirements for solid waste
compost facilities by making clarifying changes to the rule language, adding operation pad area
requirements for Type 1, 2, 3, and 4 facilities, and establishing that alternative minimum buffers
or other requirements may be increased based on a facility's specific siting or design if necessary
to protect public health and the environment, or to prevent the creation of a nuisance.
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1405 amends the application requirements for solid waste
compost facilities by reorganizing or removing some rule language to increase clarity, including
combining the existing three permit application requirements in this rule into a single permit
application covering all facility types. The revised language amends the existing modification
rule language by removing the three permit application requirements and combining them into a
single permit application covering all facility types. DWM also proposes to amend this
subsection by clarifying the types of modifications that are considered major or minor for
permitting purposes. The amended language remains consistent with the existing rule in that
major modifications require an application, but minor modifications may be addressed without a
separate permitting action.
Subsection .1405(10) amends current odor management application requirements for
Large Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities by requiring stand-alone odor control management plans. This
subsection also requires applicants to develop an odor complaint protocol.
al

A-7
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1406 provides the operational requirements for a solid waste
compost facility. Subsection .1406(18) creates an odor correction action protocol for enforcing
odor compliance requirements by establishing specific actions an owner or operator must take to
address odor problems not otherwise resolved through adherence to the original approved odor
control plan. Subsection .1406(19) adds the requirement that large Type 1 and 2 and all Type 3
and 4 facilities have an operator, supervisor, or manager who has completed periodic training for
compost operations and management.
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1407 provides the classification, testing, and distribution
requirements for solid waste compost products. This rule now requires arsenic and selenium
testing for Type 3 facilities, and removes nitrogen and chromium testing requirements for
consistency with federal regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 503.
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1408 amends the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
facility owners or operators.
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1409 clarifies the language for requesting to use alternative
procedures to meet permit requirements, and adds provisions for regulating vermicomposting
and anaerobic digestion facilities. DWM proposes to remove the existing language in subsection
.1409(b) that allows for pilot or demonstration project approvals because the proposed
exemptions in subsection .1402 allow for more types of facilities to compost without a permit or
demonstration project approval.
Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1410 is a new rule that establishes closure requirements for
owners or operators of permitted compost facilities.
Jurisdiction Regarding Compost Regulations
DWM proposes the amended rules at 15A NCAC 13B .1401 - .1409, and the new rule at
15A NCAC 13B .1410, pursuant to its authority under G.S. 130A-294, 130A-309.03, 130A-
309.11, and 130A-309.29 to regulate the composting of solid wastes, as defined in G.S. 130A-
290(35). Animal manures and biosolids are allowed in specific facility types in quantities of less
than 50 percent of the feedstocks
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources ("DWR"), Animal Feeding Operations
Program regulates those facilities that compost wastes of more than 50 percent animal manures,
and DWR's Non -Discharge Permitting Unit regulates those wastewater treatment facilities
wishing to compost biosolids6 containing more than 50 percent nitrogenous feedstock on site.7
5 hitps:Hdeq.ne.gov/conservation/rec. clin_ composting/state-organics-recycling-contacts#animal
6 `Biosolids" are primarily organic solid products resulting from the wastewater treatment
process and that can be beneficially composted. See
hgps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/plain-en lg ish-guide-part503-
biosolids-rule.pdf.
7 hops://deq.nc.gov/conservation/recyclin /g composting/state-organics-recycling-contacts#animal
5

A-8
DWR permits the composting of these wastes under its Residuals Management Rules, 15A
NCAC 02T .1101 - .I 111, which were readopted in September 2018.8
In addition, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("DACS"), Plant
Industry Division, Seed and Fertilizer Section regulates pest management and compost
distribution in 02 NCAC 48A .0700 and .1700, respectively. DACS also provides guidance for
the composting of mass animal mortality as an emergency management disposal solution.9
REGULATORY IMPACT & FISCAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management ("OSBM") approved the
Regulatory Impact & Fiscal Analysis for these rules on April 27, 2019. OSBM's analysis
indicated that these rules would not have a substantial impact on any sector, but would have
some impacts on state government, local government, and private industry. Specifically, the rule
amendments may affect the following types of compost and wood waste management facilities
regulated under the current .1400 rules:
• 5 composting pilot/demonstration projects
• 231 yard waste notification sites/small Type 1 facilities
• 15 small Type 2, 3, or 4 facilities
• 24 large Type 1 facilities
• 19 large Type 2, 3, or 4 facilities
Most of these facilities are privately owned. Local governments operate 3 small Type 3
facilities, 12 large Type 1 facilities, and 1 large Type 3 facility. OSBM noted that the proposed
amendments would provide a range of benefits to the regulated community both in cost savings
and clarity in regulatory requirements, while also protecting the environment and preventing
odor nuisances.
PUBLIC COMMENTS & RESPONSES
Oral Comments Provided at the Public Hearing
Comment #1:
We really want to see compost expand in North Carolina. We think it's an important
industry, and not only do we want to see it expand, we think it will expand as our society gets
serious about dealing with climate change. We need to divert large waste streams of food waste
to composting and out of landfills so that we won't be generating methane, but can generate
s "Residuals" refers to "any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste, other than effluent or residues from
agricultural products and processing, generated from a wastewater treatment facility, water
supply treatment facility, or air pollution control facility permitted" under the EMC's or its
delegate's authority. 15A NCAC 02T .0103(30).
9 See, e.g., https://www.ncagr.gov/disaster/documents/NCCompostingGuidance2.pdf;
https://www.ncagr.gov/disaster/documents/massmortality iu canceplan.pdf.
C�

A-9
useful compost. But because we expect this industry to expand many fold in the coming years,
we also want to see this set of rules be prepared to handle that. And when we read this set of
rules, it looks like a rule set that would work fine for a relatively small and obscure industry, but
as that industry takes center stage it's going to need to be more robust.
When we approach this we think about it partly in terms of the thinking that William
McDonough laid out in Cradle to Cradle close to two decades ago, where he talked about
streams of inorganic materials that hopefully can be recycled, and streams of organic wastes that
hopefully can be composted. When the two are combined, you get what he called monstrous
hybrids that have to be disposed of in the landfill and essentially the resources are lost, the
resources are lost for our society because it's not economically worth it or technically possible to
separate those pieces out. What we see in this rule set is a pitch that essentially says that compost
is on that green side, the organic side, because of that it can have standards that are more relaxed
than the standards we have for landfills where we're going to bury stuff for eternity. We'd like
that to be true, but if that's true, those streams really do have to be kept separate. Looking at the
rule set, we don't see that the current existing rules and the rules as they're proposed to be
adopted have all the pieces in place to guarantee that that stream stay clean. I'll give you an
example, in Section .1403 there are exclusions for hazardous waste, asbestos, and household
hazardous waste but there isn't a general prohibition on unsafe stuff being in the stream. And I
say that because the statutory authority for the program in the General Statutes actually talks
about hygienic, safe compost. So you've got the statutory authority to put in a rule a provision
that basically says that things that are unsafe or will make the compost unsafe we can exclude.
And that obviously has to be worded right, but you can have a general catch-all provision.
When you look at .1407 the testing requirements, one of the points McDonough makes is
the importance of keeping the inorganic, or persistent, things out of the organic stream, the things
that cannot break down, because they are persistent and biologically incompatible. There's
nothing in this rule that tests the resulting compost for the presence of microplastics, which are
factors for exposure to a variety of the emerging contaminants. There's nothing in here about
perfluorinated compounds, which are themselves persistent and toxic. And not to limit to that,
but that's the kind of things that it would be helpful for the ruleset to have in mind as this is
going to expand and take larger and larger waste streams, some of which are contaminated with
those materials.
It might be helpful in .1407 in particular in the water context, North Carolina invented
something called Whole Effluent Toxicity, which is used around the country, in addition to all
the numeric standards effluent has to comply with you also take a certain amount of effluent and
put organisms in contact with it and see if they die. And it's a pretty simple test that catches, if
you don't have a number for what your pollutant is, it still catches the impact. And it might be
helpful to have some concept like this in .1407, some sort of whole effluent toxicity test, to make
sure that whatever comes through these facilities still has some unregulated stuff that has a bad
impact on the people and communities that buy it and where it's applied.
In .1404, there's a discussion of water discharges. Point source discharges are prohibited
under the Clean Water Act without a permit. But it includes language that would prohibit runoff
7

A-10
only if it would violate a water quality standard, and it's totally unclear how you'd actually know
that that was happening. We want to think more about those water protections. Again, if those
toxic materials are excluded from the stream, then that's less of a concern and why this set of
rules goes one way or the other. It either goes in the direction of much more regulated the way
landfill waste is, or it goes the direction of much less regulated but you need the exclusions up
front.
We think it's really important throughout State programs that we consider environmental
justice and we consider disparate impacts and cumulative impacts. In the context of waste
programs in particular, the Division of Waste Management has unusual authority that most
divisions don't have in statute to consider cumulative impacts. There's no way that the Division
can make an informed decision about a permit for a facility if that analysis isn't part of the
permit application, but it isn't mentioned anywhere in these rules. What we would like to see is a
mention in .1405 in the permitting section of an analysis of cumulative or disparate impacts to
inform the Department's decision. In a broader lens, whenever we've had the discussion with
different parts of the Department, they've said that they'd like to consider environmental justice,
but they don't know what their authority is to do that. But in this case, you have the authority and
if it isn't in the rule it's not likely to happen in the context of the permit. It also would be helpful
in the context of this rulemaking to have some consideration of where facilities are likely to be
and where they're likely to contribute to disparate or cumulative impacts.
The proposed rules would extend permits from 5 to 10 years, and I understand why that
certainty would be important to the industry. Because we think that this is going to be a period of
rapid change and growth for the industry, and rapid increasing concern about emerging
contaminants and components in the waste stream, if the permits are extended, we want to be
clear that as additional science comes online, additional conditions can be added to these permits
mid -cycle. If they can't, then we don't think that the time period should be that long.
Submitted by: Grady McCallie, North Carolina Conservation Network
Date: July 16, 2019
Agency Response:
Regarding the comment on prohibiting unsafe materials and determining how a waste
should be excluded from composting, DWM proposes to amend the language in Rule .1402 to
allow for consideration of whether the feedstock components should be allowed in a given
facility based on knowledge of the feedstock and on testing of the feedstock, and in Rule .1407
to allow for testing of the feedstock and/or the finished product for additional parameters.
Together, DWM believes these revisions address the commenter's concerns.
Regarding the comments related to Rule .1407, DWM does not believe that the whole
effluent toxicity ("WET") test is the only appropriate analytical method, and believes that the
proposed amendments to Rule .1402 and Rule .1407 addresses the commenter's concerns.
Regardless of test method, DWM bases permit limits on the lower of environmental and risk -
based public health standards or guidelines to ensure that the environment and public health are
protected.
N.

A-11
DWM agrees with the commenter that possible PFAS contamination in compost is a
serious concern. The rule set with the proposed amendments and the authority to establish and
revise permit conditions would allow DWM to require testing for PFAS and other emerging
contaminants. However, there currently is no federal or state standard for PFAS or other
emerging contaminants and test methods for PFAS in various media are still being studied.
DWM is working with other divisions, Department of Environmental Quality leadership, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and academic and research organizations to establish
appropriate standards or other regulatory mechanisms to address this concern. When standards
are established for PFAS, the Agency has the ability to revise rules under their authority if
additional changes are needed to address concerns.
With respect to runoff, DWM inspectors do inspect permitted sites and can bring an
enforcement action for observable runoff and/or notify the Division of Energy, Mineral, and
Land Resources or the Division of Water Resources if there appears to be a runoff problem. It is
within the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources' jurisdiction to determine if runoff
or leaching violates the terms of any relevant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit limits, and the Division of Water Resources has jurisdiction over the
protection of groundwater and surface water in 15A NCAC 02L and 02B.
Regarding the quality of finished compost products, quality control for stated or claimed
levels of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous/phosphate for compost to be used by consumers
as fertilizer is regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Plant Industry
Division, Seed and Fertilizer Section under its 02 NCAC 48A rules. Quality control for levels of
pathogens and heavy metals is regulated by DWM under Rule .1407. Through permit conditions
and enforcement during inspections, DWM requires that trash and any other prohibited wastes be
removed from feedstock prior to acceptance at a compost facility.
Regarding environmental justice, DWM recognizes its statutory authority in G.S. 130A-
294(a)(4)c.10 to deny a permit application, as appropriate, based upon its cumulative impacts
analysis, including environmental justice and disproportionate impacts analyses, if that analysis
reveals that a facility would violate the terms of this statute. This statutory provision applies to
all 15A NCAC 13B rules, but does not need to be referenced explicitly in this rule set. DWM
intends to utilize and encourage the use of resources such as DEQ's recently developed
Community Mapping Tool to assist in the review of permit applications.
Finally, regarding the commenter's concerns about the proposed extension of permit
times, DWM has the authority to modify an existing permit to require testing at any time if
warranted by changed conditions or new information. The length of a permit's term does not
affect DWM's authority.
to https://www.neleg_gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter 130A/GS_130A-
294 pdf —
9

A-12
Comment #2:
Under .1406(5)(b), we think a trained and certified operator should be there at all times.
At .1406(19), the language isn't specific about the topics of discussion and what the
curriculum should be. We have recommendations about what topics should be covered, our
foundation provides training and certification. We think if you go beyond identifying that they
have to trained, but also identifying what they should be trained on, and going a little further by
requiring that they be certified by taking a test and getting re -certifying every 3 years by taking
PDH credit or CEU credits that are available all over the country as well as online. I represent
the industry and we want the industry to grow properly and safely with the environment and
safety. We think training and certification is a way to prevent a lot of the issues around odor and
mismanagement of the facility, and also on final products.
To .1407, I noticed that you're saying that under the new rules Type 1 facilities should be
exempt from testing. I disagree with that. A Type 1 facility could have issues with pathogens just
like a facility that's handling a Type 4, Type 3, or Type 2. I've seen it happen, and it gets back to
training, where you have an issue with fecal coliform or salmonella and it winds up in the
finished product. That's not safe to be used, so we think that the testing requirement should be
extended through the Large Type 1 facilities as well.
Around the anaerobic digesting and vermicomposting, I applaud the Division for adding
those in, but I think they should be separated. They're managed totally separately and totally
differently. AD facilities I notice under .1409(3)(a), there's no requirement for training of facility
operators at AD facilities. I'll tell you that AD facilities are a lot more complicated than
composting facilities. There's risk for explosion, there's risk for sulfur dioxide. The American
Biogas Council has some recommendations on training so you may want to look there for some
guidelines on what some of the minimal training should be.
You also look at the requirements of testing in .1409(3)(b), and the sampling and the
testing requirements for digestate. Digestate is not compost, compost is not digestate. You're
talking about two different processes. One is aerobic, one is anaerobic. Usually digestate is very
wet liquid. It's either liquidy or high in moisture content. You reference compost test methods,
which was done years ago by U.S. Compost Council and USDA, we created those testing
parameters, so those were made for compost testing and not digestate testing. Again, I'd
reference the American Biogas Council. They do have some test methods they have adopted that
you may want to look at as requirements.
The big thing on digestate is can it be a useful product? It's used more as a fertilizer than
it is as a soil amendment, it does have carbon in it but it also has nutrients in it. So you're
looking at applying this material based on agronomic needs. Most of the digestate today is land
applied. Some of it is composted. We welcome that it be composted, it's a further step in
reducing any other issues like pathogens. Have they proven that they've reduced pathogens in
their process?
Submitted by: Frank Franciosi, U.S. Compost Council
Date: July 16, 2019
10

A-13
Agency Response:
Regarding the commenter's proposal that operators be trained and certified, DWM does
not believe that all operators should be required to acquire certification in addition to training
because the proposed rules allow for flexibility and training appropriate for a specific facility
based upon DWM guidance and approval, consistent with G.S. 130A-309.25. DWM wants for
there to be flexibility regarding appropriate curriculum, and will provide permittees with policy
guidance documents outlining the components of appropriate training programs. Also, since the
proposed rule not only requires training/certification of operators, but also general training for all
facility staff (including a review of the operations plan and permit documents), DWM does not
believe that a trained and certified person must be on site at all times. Nonetheless, DWM
proposes to amend the language in Rule .1406 to require that an operator, manager, or supervisor
trained in accordance with Rule .1406(19) be onsite or available to staff at the phone number
provided in the permit application during a facility's operating hours.
DWM also does not believe that covered persons within a permitted facility must be re-
trained every 3 years, and that the current training requirement in Rule .1406(19) is appropriate
for solid waste compost facilities. DWM proposed the current five-year training requirement
based upon feedback received during the stakeholder process.
Regarding testing at Type I facilities, DWM believes that permittees' documentation of
Rule .1406 temperature requirements is sufficient to ensure that pathogens are not in final
compost products. In addition, the yard, garden, silviculture, and untreated and unpainted wood
waste feedstocks for Type 1 facilities are not expected to have more than a minimal amount of
pathogens or physical contaminants such as metals due to the inherent physical characteristics
and sources of these feedstock.
Regarding the commenter's suggestion that anaerobic digestion ("AD") and vermiculture
facilities should be regulated separately, DWM already has provided their respective regulations
in separate subsections within this rule set. Therefore, DWM does not see the utility in further
separating the AD and vermiculture provisions within Subchapter 13B.
Solid waste compost facility rules address the management of solid waste at the AD
facility. These areas include the incoming waste receiving area, the waste (digestate) at the end
of the process, and any other areas in which solid waste may be exposed to the environment.
The disposal or disposition of the waste digestate at the end of the process is to be regulated and
tested based on the intended disposal, disposition, or use. Other Divisions, including the
Division of Air Quality and the Division of Water Resources, may also exercise jurisdiction over
the prevention of air and water pollution from AD operations.
With respect to training at AD facilities, Rule .1406(1) — (9) ensures that AD facilities
will operate like other solid waste management facilities, but operator training is not required
because DWM believes that the proposed rule amendments and permit requirements are
sufficient to ensure proper handling of solid waste.
Regarding the American Biogas Council's test methods, DWM notes that both the
Council's methods and those proposed in this rule set are based on the same principles provided
11

A-14
in federal regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 503. Therefore, DWM does not believe there is need to
amend the proposed test methods.
Finally, with respect to testing for pathogens in final products from AD facilities, those
facilities already are required to test for pathogens in digestate. DWM's current rule references
the Environmental Protection Agency's SW-84611 liquid and solid test methods rather than
dictating that permittees use a specific test method for parameters. Federal regulations in 40
C.F.R. Part 503 list the parameters that must be tested, and include pathogens.
Written Comments Received During the Comment Period
Comment #1: I understand there are no guidelines in the compost rules. Obviously, we should
be testing all natural materials assumed to be clean for contaminants, but, for me, this is another
example of misguided intentions, and looking at the surface and symptoms.
I have done the biological testing on McGill Compost. They are not making compost, or
humus, they are making high -end mulch, at best. Many of the samples I studied had urea,
parasitic nematodes, etc. indicating very immature organic material. In other words, it is only
compost in name. It shouldn't be surprising that this is a contaminated substance.
The solution is to make actual compost that has been decomposed by soil microbes into
humus. If we would do the study of what diverse soil microbes can do to bioremediate PFAS
chemicals we might find that they are removed from the final product. To your knowledge, is
this work being done?
The problem is not PFAS in compost. The problem is that we are not making actual
compost in the first place. Regardless, we should be testing for PFAS.
Submitted by: Evan Folds, Supervisor, New Hanover Soil & Water Conservation District
Date: July 8, 2019
Agency Response:
DWM agrees with the commenter that possible PFAS contamination in compost is a
serious concern. The rule set with the proposed amendments and the authority to establish and
revise permit conditions would allow DWM to require testing for PFAS and other emerging
contaminants. However, there currently is no federal or state standard for PFAS or other
emerging contaminants and test methods for PFAS in various media are still being studied.
DWM is working with other divisions, Department of Environmental Quality leadership, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and academic and research organizations to establish
appropriate standards or other regulatory mechanisms to address this concern. When standards
11 hM2s://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846
12

A-15
are established for PFAS, the Agency has the ability to revise rules under their authority if
additional changes are needed to address concerns.12
It also is worth noting that the McGill facility referenced by the commenter is regulated by the
Division of Water Resources under rules 15A NCAC 02T .1101 - .I 111, which were readopted
in September 2018.
Comment #2: 1 read Lisa Sorg's NC Policy Watch blog13 about contaminants in garden
compost.
I would like to see restrictions on the amount of any such contaminant in products such as
garden compost, but cannot attend the July 16 meeting and do not know what DEQ feels would
be 'safe' levels of such contaminants. How industrial sludge qualifies as a compost ingredient is
beyond me, but if it is considered acceptable, the allowed levels of contaminants should be the
lowest levels achievable.
Submitted by: Jackie Hough
Date: July 8, 2019
Agency Response:
DWM agrees with the commenter that possible PFAS contamination in compost is a
serious concern. The rule set with the proposed amendments and the authority to establish and
revise permit conditions would allow DWM to require testing for PFAS and other emerging
contaminants. However, there currently is no federal or state standard for PFAS or other
emerging contaminants and test methods for PFAS in various media are still being studied.
DWM is working with other divisions, Department of Environmental Quality leadership, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and academic and research organizations to establish
appropriate standards or other regulatory mechanisms to address this concern. When standards
are established for PFAS, the Agency has the ability to revise rules under their authority if
additional changes are needed to address concerns.
12 For more information on the Department of Environmental Quality and Environmental
Protection Agency's progress regarding PFAS and other emerging contaminants, see
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/news/key-issues/genx-investi at�genx-timeline,
h!tps:Hfiles.nc. gov/ncdeq/GenX/SAB/SAB-GenX-Report-DRAFT-082018.pdf,
https://www. epa. gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-
and-pfos, and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
12/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminants pfos pfoa_11-20-17_508_O.Pdf
13 http://pulse.ncpolicyEatch.org/2019/07/08/pfas-have-been-found-in-garden-compost-now-is-
the-time-comment-on-proposed-rules-on-how-much-if-any-contaminants-this-material-should-
contain/
13

A-16
Comment #3: The US Composting Council (USCC) has reviewed the proposed rule changes
cited as the Department of Environmental Quality Title 15A NCAC 13B .1410 for Solid Waste
Compost Facilities. Below is our response with comments and recommendations to these
proposed rule changes.
15A NCAC 13B .1405 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE
COMPOST FACILITIES Section 8 (h) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
Operational Requirements
(8) The USCC recommends that NCDEQ add Large Type 1 Facilities to this requirement.
(h) Large Type 1 Facilities should inspect all incoming feedstocks as they are unloaded to
screen for possible physical contaminates.
(i) (iii) (iv) With respect to these requirements, Large Type 1 Facilities should also comply.
(ii) Final product sampling and testing ensures that the public will receive a safe and salable
product that is beneficial to soil health and plant.
(iii) Procedures for record keeping ensures that the facility has met VAR and PFRP. This is
important to public health and safety as above.
(iv) It is also important that Large Type 1 Facilities have the proper federal, state and local
permits to operate.
15A NCAC 13B .1406 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE
COMPOST FACILITIES Sections (5) (a) (b) (c) (13) (19) (a) (i) (ii)
Practices and Operational Requirements
(5)(a) Large sites are not defined. This should read Large Type 1,2,3 & 4 Facilities.
(b) The USCC recommends that a trained and certified operator be on site at all times, while the
facility is open and operating.
(c) The USCC recommends that the local fire department reviews their fire protection plan and
visits the site on an annual basis.
(13) With regards to pathogen reduction, the USCC recommends adding Type 2 facilities to this
requirement. Feedstocks that are permitted to be accepted at these facilities can carry pathogens.
Compost Training Requirements
(19) (a) (i) The USCC recommends defining the minimum curriculum for training for all types of
facilities. Large Type I facilities made not need topics covered in Large Type 2, 3 & 4 based on
the feedstocks that they are processing.
(ii) We recommend deleting the word manager and adding in the word operations
(ii) The word "certification needs to be defined. Certification is different from training. Training
on the subject matter is a requirement of certification. The USCC views that Certification of
Operators meet the following criteria:
14

A-17
0 Minimum of a High School diploma or GED.
0 30 class hours in the following domains.
• Business Acumen
• Composting Purpose & Vision
• Composting Science
• Equipment & Services Maintenance
• Feedstock Management
• Health and Safety
• Process Control & Quality Assurance
• Regulatory Compliance
• Site Management
0 Passing a written test
0 Maintaining 30 credit hours for recertification over a period of 3 years.
15A NCAC 13B .1407 CLASSIFICATION, TESTING, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SOLID
WASTE COMPOST PRODUCTS (a) (b) (2) (3) (5) (B) (c)
(a) The words "minimal pathogenic organisms" are not defined as which type of pathogen and
population in colony forming units per 100 mL, CFU/100 mL.
(b) Large Type 1 Facilities can produce a compost product that may contain both pathogens and
heavy metals. The USCC recommends adding this requirement for Large Type 1 facilities.
(2) The USCC recommends that the EPA 503 metals and limits be listed on a table.
(3) The USCC recommends that these pathogens and the 40CFR 503.32 9a) (3) limits be listed in
table form is this document.
(B) Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC). This document is
now priced at three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00).
(c) USCC recommends that Type 1 facilities be added to this requirement and meet the final
product testing.
15A NCAC 13B .1409 ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES, VERMICOMPOSTING, AND
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION REQUIREMENTS (3) (A) (B)
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Vermicomposting should be listed in separate sections. They are
vastly two different methods of processing solid waste. AD facilities require additional safety
requirements and propose possible risks of explosion and exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas.
(3) (A) (B) Training and testing requirements for AD Facilities would be different than
composting facilities. Digestate is a by-product of anaerobic digestion and should be defined.
15

A-18
Digestate is not compost and the test methods to evaluate for digestate are different than that of
compost. The same goes for training requirements for at AD facilities.
Submitted by: Frank Franciosi, U.S. Composting Council
Date: August 8, 2019
Agency Response:
Regarding the commenter's suggestion that Type 1 facilities should also be required to
include in their operations plan a discussion of compliance with operational requirements listed
in .1405(8)(i), DWM agrees and is adding Type 1 facilities to the requirements.
Regarding the commenter's request to define "Large sites", DWM has revised Rule
.1406(5)(a) to begin, "Large facilities as defined in Rule .1402(e)(7) of this Section..." to clarify
what is meant by "Large sites".
Regarding the comments on operational requirements in .1406 that recommend having a
trained and certified operator on site at all times and that recommend defining training
curriculum, please see the first paragraph of DWM's response to Comment #2 under oral
comments from the public hearing on page 11 of this report.
Regarding the comment to have the local fire department review fire protection plans and
conduct annual site visits, DWM has revised rule .1405(12) to require a facility to submit in a
permit application documentation that the local fire protection authority has been notified of the
site use. DWM believes the safety requirements with respect to fire protection and local fire
departments in existing Rules .1402(g)(1)(e), .1405(8)(g), .1406(7)(b) and (8) also address these
concerns.
Regarding the comment to add pathogen reduction requirements for Type 2 facilities,
DWM has revised rule .1406(11) to require Type 2 facilities to meet the same requirements for
pathogen reduction as Type 1 facilities.
Regarding the comment to replace `manager' with `operations' in describing
certification, DWM agrees that removing "manager" better defines compost certification in line
with the compost industry terminology in Rule .1406(19)(a)(ii). Also, regarding the comment for
the need to define certification in rule, DWM does not wish to restrict potential programs to
specific criteria in rule, however, DWM has revised Rule .1406(19)(a)(ii) to include certification
by the US Composting Council Certification Commission as an example of a certification
program that is approved by the Division.
Regarding the comment to define minimal pathogenic organisms as to specific pathogen
type and population limits, DWM agrees this language is vague and proposes to remove `that
contain minimum pathogenic organisms' from .1407(a) and replace with clarifying language that
compost must also meet the requirements for pathogen reduction set in .1406(11) in order to
have unrestricted application and distribution.
Regarding the comment to sample and analyze compost from Type 1 facilities for
pathogens and metals, please see the third paragraph of DWM's response to Comment #2 under
oral comments Comment #2 on page 11 of this report regarding testing at Type 1 facilities.
16

A-19
Regarding the comments to include tables for metals, pathogens, and regulatory limits,
DWM agrees this would helpful however G.S. 150B-19(4) does not allow the EMC to adopt a
rule that "Repeats the content of a law, a rule, or a federal regulation...." Since this list of
constituents and standards are established in federal regulation, DWM has incorporated these
regulations by reference, including subsequent amendments or editions, at the end of Rule
.1407(b)(2). If the federal requirements or standards should change in the future, incorporating
amendments in this way would prevent the agency from having to amend the rules to
accommodate the change. DWM intends to develop a document containing these compost rules
once adopted and any applicable state laws or federal regulations referenced in the compost rules
for ease of review; and will provide this document on DWM's compost webpage.
Regarding the comment about the cost for the TMECC document, DWM updated the cost
of this document to $350.00 in Rule .1407(b)(5)(B).
Regarding the comment requesting that Type 1 facilities meet the testing and
concentrations limits for pathogens and metals in compost in .1407(b)(2) and (3), please see the
third paragraph of DWM's response to Comment #2 under oral comments from the public
hearing on page 11 of this report regarding testing at Type 1 facilities.
Comment #4: I am writing to urge you all to include testing for toxic compounds at our compost
facilities in North Carolina. Frankly, I was incredulous that this is not already being done, given
that this compost is used for farms, gardens, parks, and playgrounds. After being tested, some of
this compost was shown to contain 1,4 dioxane, a likely carcinogen, as designated by the EPA.
Now that the presence of a likely carcinogen has been detected, I urge you to take action
and ensure the draft rules governing the testing at compost facilities include testing for toxic
compounds. It is your duty to keep the public, animals, and the environment safe and free from
toxic chemicals, especially in our water and what we are feeding our families. As a tax paying
citizen, it is imperative that the public be able to trust the judgement of the officials appointed or
elected to keep our state safe and habitable.
Submitted by: Claudia Lange, RPh, BA
Date: August 15, 2019
Agency Response: DWM agrees with the commenter that possible toxic contamination,
including 1,4-dioxane, in compost is a serious concern. The rule set with the proposed
amendments and the authority to establish and revise permit conditions would allow DWM to
require testing for toxic contaminants. For regulated constituents such as 1,4-dioxane, DWM
proposes to amend the language in Rule .1402 to allow for consideration of whether the
feedstock components should be allowed in a given facility based on knowledge of the feedstock
and on testing of the feedstock, and in Rule .1407 to allow for testing of the feedstock and/or the
finished product for additional parameters. Together, DWM believes these revisions address the
commenter's concerns.
17

A-20
Comment #5: North Carolina Law Prohibits Compost Facilities from Accepting or
Processing Hazardous Waste, or Waste That Poses A Substantial Hazard to Human Health
North Carolina law prohibits compost facilities from accepting or processing solid waste
that threatens human health. Solid waste compost facilities may not accept or process hazardous
waste. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403; see also 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .0101 (defining
"compost facility" to include facilities that degrade "non -hazardous solid waste"); 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 13B .0101 (defining "compost" to include decomposed organic matter that is free
of "toxins or materials harmful at the point of end use."). "Hazardous waste" includes "solid
waste, or a combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration or physical,
chemical or infectious characteristics may:
• Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; or
• Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed."
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290; see 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .0101 (stating that the
definitions in N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290 are applicable to the regulations on solid waste,
including composting). Therefore, if waste is hazardous, or threatens human health, it may not be
sent to or processed at any compost facilities in North Carolina.
The Current and Proposed Testing Requirements Are Inadequate and Will Not Reveal If
Compost Facilities Are Accepting or Processing Hazardous Waste
15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1407 requires compost facilities to test their finished or
processed compost once every six months, or every 20,000 tons of compost —whichever comes
first, and only requires facilities to test for metals and pathogens. This rule is flawed for two
reasons.
First, it allows compost facilities to accept waste without knowing if the waste is
hazardous pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290. There is no requirement to test
materials for hazardous waste before a compost facility accepts those materials. Under the
current and proposed rules, therefore, a compost facility or the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality ("DEQ") would not know if a facility was accepting hazardous waste in
violation of 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403.
Second, the rules do not require testing of enough pollutants to ensure that hazardous
waste is not being accepted or processed by compost facilities. The current and proposed rules
require testing of only a handful of metals and pathogens, excluding thousands of harmful
pollutants that are known to occur in land -applied solid waste, and that would meet the definition
of hazardous waste under N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290. As a result, the testing requirements
fail to ensure that a facility is not accepting or processing hazardous waste in violation of 15A
N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403.
IN

A-21
As demonstrated below, these severe deficiencies in the rules' testing requirements have
already endangered communities by allowing hazardous waste to enter our compost, and to
threaten our food and drinking water.
PFAS, a Hazardous Waste under North Carolina Law, Has Already Been Found in State -
Regulated Compost, Threatening Our Food and Water
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") are a toxic class of chemicals that meet the
definition of hazardous waste under N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290 and state law prohibits
compost facilities from accepting or processing these chemicals. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B
.1403. However, because of the inadequate testing requirements in the rules governing compost,
PFAS has already been found in state -regulated compost, jeopardizing the safety of our food and
drinking water.
PFAS have already caused a public health crisis in North Carolina. On June 7, 2017, the
people living in Wilmington, North Carolina discovered that their drinking water supply had
been poisoned with dangerous PFAS-contaminated wastewater for four decades. DEQ must
amend the rules to require testing for hazardous waste, including PFAS—not only to comply
with the law, but also to protect the health and safety of our communities.
North Carolina law prohibits compost containing PFAS.
PFAS are a dangerous, pervasive class of chemicals. These chemicals easily meet the
definition of "hazardous waste" under North Carolina law because they pose a substantial hazard
to human health when they are improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise
managed. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290. Accordingly, compost facilities may not accept or
process PFAS. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403.
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in manufacturing since the
1940s. They are used in producing the coatings in non-stick cookware, stain -resistant carpeting
and upholstery, grease -resistant pizza boxes, and waterproof outdoor gear. They are found in
numerous other consumer and industrial products, as well as in firefighting foam used at airports
and military installations.
It is well established that PFAS are a threat to the health and safety of the public. Two of
the commonly studied PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctyl sulfonate
("PFOS"), have been found to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney and
testicular cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, lower
birth weight and size, obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels
and delayed puberty. Epidemiological studies show that many of these same health outcomes
result from exposure to other PFAS, including but not limited to:
• Ammonium salt of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid, or GenX ("HFPO-
DA") (CAS # 13252-13-6)
• Perfluorobutyric acid ("PFBA") (CAS # 375-22-4)9
• Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS") (CAS # 375-73-5)10
• Perfluorohexanoic acid ("PFHxA") (CAS # 307-24-4)
19

A-22
• Perfluoroheptanoic acid ("PFHpA") (CAS # 375-85-9)
• Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA") (CAS # 375-95-1)
• Perfluorodecanoic acid ("PFDA") (CAS # 335-16-2)
• Perfluoroundecanoic acid ("PFUA") (CAS # 2058-94-8)11
• Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid ("PFBuS") (CAS # 375-73-5)12
• Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS") (CAS # 355-46-4)
• Perfluorododecanoic acid ("PFDoA") (CAS # 307-55-1)
• Perfluorooctane sulfonamide ("PFOSA") (CAS # 754-91-6)
• 2-(N-Methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamide) acetic acid (Me-PFOSA-AcOH) (CAS
# 2355-31-9)
• 2-(N-Ethyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamide) acetic acid (Et-PFOSA-AcOH) (CAS #
2991- 50-6)
EPA established a lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion ("ppt") for the
combined concentrations of two types of PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water. Since then,
in June 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released an updated Draft
Toxicological Profile for PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS. The report suggested that many of the
chemicals are much more harmful than previously thought. For instance, the minimum risk
levels, or the amount of a chemical a person can eat, drink, or breathe each day without a
detectable risk to health, was determined to be only 11 ppt for PFOA, and 7 ppt for PFOS.
15 States like New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont have acknowledged
the dangers of these compounds and have either proposed or finalized drinking water standards
for various PFAS at 10 ppt, 11 ppt, 12 ppt, 13 ppt, 14 ppt, 15 ppt, 18 ppt, and 20 ppt.
Moreover, PFAS have been found to be dangerous when they are improperly managed.
PFAS have been spilled, dumped, and released into the environment for decades. PFAS
manufacturing and processing facilities, facilities using PFAS in the production of other
products, and airports and military installations are some of the main contributors of PFAS
releases into the air, soil, and water. As a result, PFAS have been found in air and dust, surface
water and groundwater, and soil and sediment. Hundreds of PFAS-contaminated sites have been
identified around the country.
Because PFAS are extremely resistant to breaking down in the environment and can
travel long distances —once PFAS are in the environment, they end up in our drinking water.
Through the Environmental Protection Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3
("UCMR3") data —which measured only six compounds out of the entire class of thousands of
PFAS—PFAS were detected in public water supplies serving over 16.5 million residents in 33
states. Since the monitoring under UCMR3 ended in 2015, many states have discovered
contamination of additional drinking water supplies —including southeastern North Carolina
where DuPont and Chemours contaminated the drinking water supplies for over 250,000 North
Carolinians for four decades.
20

A-23
Recently, PFAS has even been discovered in our food. The Food and Drug
Administration has found high levels of PFAS in grocery store meat and seafood, chocolate cake,
and in leafy green vegetables sold at a farmers market in southeastern North Carolina.
PFAS clearly "pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health" when they
are improperly managed, and are hazardous waste under North Carolina law. N.C. Gen. Stat.
Ann. § 130A-290. Because PFAS are a hazardous waste, state law prohibits PFAS from being
accepted or processed by compost facilities. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403.
PFAS have been found in our compost, and threaten drinking water supplies and
food.
Toxic HAS have already been found in state -regulated compost, risking the safety of our
food and drinking water. Scientific studies and investigation into PFAS-contaminated sites
nationwide have shown that the land application of solid waste containing PFAS can
contaminate drinking water supplies and food.
PFAS are in land -applied solid waste, including compost.
PFAS have been detected in regulated compost here in North Carolina. Last spring,
samples of the compost produced at the McGill Environmental Systems facility in Sampson
County contained 20 types of PFAS with cumulative concentrations of 136.8 ppt.
This is not surprising because compost facilities in the state receive waste from a well -
documented source of PFAS contamination —solid waste from wastewater treatment plants.
One study conducted PFAS testing of solid waste collected by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency from wastewater treatment plants all over the country. The study tested
samples collected in the EPA's 2001 National Sewage Sludge Survey, in which the EPA
collected 94 samples from over 30 statessamples selected to represent over 16,000 wastewater
treatment plants nationwide. Although the study only tested for 13 out of thousands of existing
PFAS, it found that PFAS "were consistently detected in all composite biosolids samples," and
that there was a "nationwide occurrence of PFAS in U.S. biosolids" the treated solid waste
coming from wastewater treatment plants.
In North Carolina, compost facilities receive large amounts of solid waste from treatment
plants. From July 2017 to June 2018, for example, a compost facility owned by Eastern Compost
LLC received and composted nearly 15,000 tons of solid waste from wastewater treatment
plants; a facility owned by McGill Environmental Systems received over 62,000 tons of solid
waste from treatment plants; and a facility owned by Orbit Energy Anerobic Digester Charlotte
received over 12,000 tons of solid waste from treatment plants.
Given many compost facilities in North Carolina accept substantial amounts of solid
waste from wastewater treatment plants —known sources of PFAS contamination —it is likely
that compost across the state contains PFAS.
Land application of PFAS-contaminated solid waste can contaminate drinking
water and food.
21

A-24
The land application of PFAS-polluted waste can cause toxic PFAS to reach both our
drinking water supplies and our food. Studies have shown that PFAS in land -applied solid waste
can runoff into surface waters and leach into groundwater. PFAS in land -applied solid waste are
also absorbed by plants, and can transfer to animals that graze on contaminated crops.
Farmland in Decatur, Alabama, for example, received solid waste from a local
wastewater treatment plant that accepted wastewater from PFAS-related industries. High PFAS
concentrations were found in plants, surface water, and well water in and around the farmland. In
nearby surface waters, PFAS concentrations reached 11,000 ppt; in well water, concentrations
reached 6,400 ppt—hundreds of times higher than any state or national health levels or drinking
water standards for PFAS. In Arundel, Maine, the spreading of treated solid waste on a 100-acre
dairy farm likely caused contamination of the milk coming from that dairy farm.39 Milk from
the farm had levels of one PFAS chemical as high as 1,420 ppt.
Here in North Carolina, the Cane Creek reservoir, which is a water supply source for the
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority, has contained PFAS concentrations at 106 ppt, and
the suspected source of that contamination is runoff from nearby fields where solid waste is
applied as fertilizer. This has caused a "persistent problem" for the public drinking water supply.
PFAS has already been found in compost in North Carolina, and it is likely in other
compost. Thus, compost in North Carolina is a possible route of PFAS contamination into our
drinking water and our food —through polluted rivers and streams, and polluted crops and
animals that eat those crops.
DEQ Must Amend the Rules to Require That Materials Be Tested for Hazardous Waste,
Including PFAS, Before And After the Composting Process.
The proposed amendments to North Carolina's rules on Solid Waste Compost Facilities
will not protect the health and safety of our communities. The current and proposed rules only
require compost facilities to test their finished compost for metals and pathogens. They fail to
require testing of all hazardous wastes, such as PFAS, and they fail to require testing of materials
before they are accepted by a compost facility.
To comply with North Carolina General Statute § 130A-290 and 15A N.C. Admin. Code
13B .1403 and to protect the health and safety of North Carolinians, DEQ must amend 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 13B .1407 to require testing of all potentially hazardous waste, including PFAS,
prior to the compost facility's acceptance of waste, and in the finished compost. Other states are
recognizing the dangers of spreading toxic waste onto farms —including PFAS-polluted waste —
and are taking actions to stop that practice. DEQ must do the same, and amend the compost rules
to prevent further toxic contamination of our state's drinking water, food, rivers, and streams.
Submitted by: Jean Zhuang & Kelly Moser, Southern Environmental Law Center
Date: August 15, 2019
Agency Response: DWM agrees with the commenter that possible PFAS contamination
in compost is a serious concern. The rule set with the proposed amendments and the authority to
establish and revise permit conditions would allow DWM to require testing for PFAS and other
22

A-25
emerging contaminants. However, there currently is no federal or state standard for PFAS or
other emerging contaminants and test methods for PFAS in various media are still being studied.
DWM is working with other divisions, Department of Environmental Quality leadership, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and academic and research organizations to establish
appropriate standards or other regulatory mechanisms to address this concern. When standards
are established for PFAS, the Agency has the ability to revise rules under their authority if
additional changes are needed to address concerns.
The McGill facility referenced by the commenter is regulated by the Division of Water
Resources under rules 15A NCAC 02T .1101 - .I 111, which were readopted in September 2018.
Comment #6: As a long-time Chatham County resident and organic gardener, I am very
concerned about what is in my compost. People expect commercial compost products to be safe
to use. The potential harm that PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane, two of the many emerging contaminates
of concern, pose to human health and the environment is a real concern since these chemical
contaminants are resistant to biodegradation and bioaccumulate in wildlife and humans. To
protect soil health PFAS, 1,4-Dioxane and other chemicals of concern should not be in compost
that is sold and distributed for widespread garden or landscape use in our communities.
Recent studies have shown that high levels of PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane, two of the many
emerging contaminates of concern, can be found in drinking water, rainwater, soil, food sources,
plants, animals, and humans throughout the Cape Fear River Basin. Allowing unregulated
chemical contaminates in the feedstock for the composting industry creates yet another exposure
pathway for toxic substances to be released into the environment. Leachate from compost
applications can filter down into groundwater or surface water, entering our water supply.
Multiple sources of exposure to chemical contaminants adversely affect environmental and
human health. Emerging contaminants of concern are emerging threats to the health and quality
of life for all living organisms.
In NC Policy Watch special report: Unregulated, untested and unknown, Lisa Sorg
reported that McGill Environmental Services, Type 4 compost facility in Sampson Co., accepted
sludge from DAK Americas that contained 1,4-Dioxane. Without regulatory requirements for
testing emerging contaminates in the feedstock and finished product, how will DEQ know
whether or not this has also happened at the McGill Environmental Services located in Moncure,
Chatham County? The McGill compost facility is situated northeast of the Brickhaven coal ash
landfill and the STAR recycling coal ash project under construction at the Cape Fear Power
Station location. Waste trucked from local heavy industries or farms for feedstock could contain
chemical contaminates. (Paper products may also have a PFAS coating.)
EPA has yet to set regulatory standards for emerging contaminates in compost. In the
meantime, DEQ should propose a tracking system requiring an analysis for PFAS and 1,4-
Dioxane in the raw feedstock and the finished compost product. Industries should be required to
disclose if these chemical compounds are present in the material shipped to compost facilities
since neither PFAS, or 1,4-Dioxane can be removed during the composting process. This testing
23

A-26
would help DEQ determine if compost is another potential source of chemical contaminates in
our environment.
Extending the permit application time from five to ten years is a cost reduction for
industry but does not benefit the public. The opportunity to make public comments as needed for
DEQ to review and address relevant and urgent health and environmental concerns is timely and
would be limited if the proposed extended application time is approved.
Submitted by: Jeannie Ambrose
Date: August 16, 2019
Agency Response: DWM agrees with the commenter that possible PFAS and 1,4-dioxane
contamination in compost is a serious concern. The rule set with the proposed amendments and
the authority to establish and revise permit conditions would allow DWM to require testing for
PFAS and other emerging contaminants, as well as regulated constituents such as 1,4-dioxane.
However, there currently is no federal or state standard for PFAS or other emerging
contaminants and test methods for PFAS in various media are still being studied. DWM is
working with other divisions, Department of Environmental Quality leadership, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and academic and research organizations to establish
appropriate standards or other regulatory mechanisms to address this concern. When standards
are established for PFAS, the Agency has the ability to revise rules under their authority if
additional changes are needed to address concerns. For regulated constituents such as 1,4-
dioxane, DWM proposes to amend the language in Rule .1402 to allow for consideration of
whether the feedstock components should be allowed in a given facility based on knowledge of
the feedstock and on testing of the feedstock, and in Rule .1407 to allow for testing of the
feedstock and/or the finished product for additional parameters. Together, DWM believes these
revisions address the commenter's concerns. It also is worth noting that the McGill facility in
Sampson County referenced by the commenter is regulated by the Division of Water Resources
under rules 15A NCAC 02T .1101 - .1111, which were readopted in September 2018.
Finally, regarding the commenter's concerns about the proposed extension of permit
times, DWM has the authority to modify an existing permit to require testing at any time if
warranted by changed conditions or new information. The public may submit comments to
DWM at any time, and if such comments provide new, relevant information, DWM may amend
an existing permit to account for changed conditions. The length of a permit's term does not
affect DWM's authority. A mapping tool that shows existing permitted facilities is available at
hgps://ncdenr.maps. arc gis. com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7dd59be275Ob4Obebebfa49fc
3R3f(RR_
Comment #7: We acknowledge the importance of the compost industry in North Carolina and
the many benefits composting brings to the environment. Composting helps divert wasted food,
organics, and climate- driving methane emissions from landfills. Considering the great benefit to
the environment that composting presents and the imminent need for solutions to the world's
climate crisis, we expect more than a causal expansion of the composting industry in the coming
24

A-27
years. As compost moves to center stage, this ruleset will come under increased pressure, and we
propose the following improvements in hopes that the industry will be prepared to bear that
pressure.
Exclusions for feedstock
Section .1403 excludes hazardous waste, asbestos, and household hazardous waste, but nothing
else. Many contaminants fall outside this exclusion but, nonetheless, can render compost either
`unsafe' or `unhygienic'. North Carolina General Statute 130A-309.11 directs the EMC to adopt
rules that include `[r]equirements necessary to produce hygienically safe compost products...'
To meet that, the readopted section should include a general - catch-all — exclusion of any
contaminants that are not removed or rendered harmless through the operations required by this
article (15A NCAC 13B .1400 et seq.) from the feedstock.
Limits for specific contaminants
The other place to catch harmful contaminants in compost is at the end of the process. Rule
.1406 and .1407 set standards for testing compost. Unfortunately, the proposed ruleset only
covers a limited number of contaminants and omits some known contaminants that will threaten
public health and the environment, particularly as this industry grows. These contaminants
include microplastics and persistent toxics, including perfluorinated substances (PFAS). We
appreciate that it is hard, based on current science, to set `safe' numeric thresholds for some of
these — which is why the broad exclusion language in .1403 is so important as a backstop. Where
science will support putting in limits for .1406 and .1407 for specific contaminants, the EMC
should.
The EMC and Division of Waste Management (DWM) should consider adding something
comparable to the Whole Effluent Toxicity test used in the context of water discharges as
another backstop to catch actual toxicity. By its nature, the Whole Effluent Toxicity test does not
easily identify sub -lethal or chronic exposure effects, but it does prevent acute toxicity from
slipping through the cracks when the source is not any of the specific contaminants listed in
.1406 or .1407.
Anti -microbial bacteria
The provisions in .1407(b)(3) addressing bacteria make no mention of antibiotic resistance.
Depending on where waste streams are coming from — for example, litter from poultry farms — it
is entirely likely that a high percentage of bacteria in the resulting compost is resistant to
antimicrobials, even if the counts are low. Given that there is no restriction on where the compost
may be used, this represents a health hazard in conflict with the statutory mandate to assure `safe
and hygienic' compost. The proposed ruleset should place limits on feedstock to prevent the
presence of antimicrobial -resistant bacteria in the compost.
Sampling
The unpermitted discharge of liquids from a compost operation into water is properly prohibited
in .1404(a)(9)(B) — and is already illegal under the federal Clean Water Act. However,
.1404(a)(9)(C), addressing nonpoint runoff, is inadequate. There is no provision in the rules that
25

A-28
requires sampling of runoff or conditions in adjacent or downstream waters — without which this
provision is a dead letter. It is fine to keep it, but the ruleset also needs provisions that ensure
runoff is contained onsite. At the very least, there needs to be provisions in this ruleset that
ensure pollutants in runoff will not reach nearby waters.
Environmental Justice
As a matter of good public policy and — in the case of this ruleset, compliance with state statutes
— it is essential that the ruleset provide for the analysis of environmental justice and specifically,
the analysis of potential disparate and cumulative impacts to environmental justice communities.
First, we recommend that rule .1405 - setting out application procedures for composting permits,
explicitly include language calling for an analysis of potential disparate and cumulative impacts
of a new facility. The language should include any conditions that may be attached to the permit
to avoid or mitigate those impacts. We also recommend that DWM staff develop a clear and
concise procedure for this analysis and work with applicants where needed. DEQ's new
Community Mapping Tool — a non -regulatory, analytical tool — may serve as a data source to
simplify the needed analysis.
NC General Statute 130A-294(a)(9) charges DWM, in processing an application for a solid
waste facility, to deny the application if "[t]he cumulative impact of the proposed facility, when
considered in relation to other similar impacts of facilities located or proposed in the community,
would have a disproportionate adverse impact on a minority or low-income community...". That
statutory requirement applies to the agency whether or not the EMC rules governing any
particular solid waste permit process provide for an equity analysis. However, if the rules do not
provide of an equity analysis the agency's record of decision will not include the basic
information necessary for the agency to make a non -arbitrary decision on the application of
130A-294(a)(9).
The Impact Analysis for the proposed ruleset does not address disparate and cumulative impacts.
We suspect that, of the many types of operations that DWM permits as a part of North Carolina's
overarching solid waste plan, compost operations may be among the least likely to impose
disparate impacts or to contribute to oppressive cumulative impacts in already overburdened
communities. However, there is no way to know that without an explicit analysis, and the record
for this ruleset to date contains no such analysis.
We recognize that applicants for compost permits will fall on a spectrum from minimally funded
to significantly overcapitalized; the Impact Analysis suggests that only some applicants currently
hire consultants to prepare their applications. Analysis of disparate and cumulative impacts —
even with a method set out by the agency — may be a burden on smaller applicants. For that
reason, we recommend that staff develop a clear and concise procedure for the analysis, and that
staff work with applicants where needed to conduct that analysis. DEQ's new Community
Mapping tools — a non- regulatory, analytical tool — may serve as a data source to simplify the
needed analysis.
Beyond the specific statutory authority that applies to solid waste permits (not just compost
facilities), state constitutional requirements underpin the policy decision to build consideration of
26

A-29
equity into the permit process. According to North Carolina Constitution Article 1, section 19,
the Law of the Land provision, calls both for `equal protection of the laws for all North
Carolinians, and no state `discrimination by race or color'. Without analyzing equity (rulemaking
and permitting), the EMC and the agency cannot guarantee an actual outcome on the ground that
is free of discrimination based on race or color, or that assures all North Carolinians equal
protection.
Extension of permit durations should be delayed
One significant relaxation from current rules in the proposed ruleset is the extension of a
permit's duration from five years to ten years. This proposed change is coupled with a provision
stating that when a facility modifies its permit mid-term, that modification can also extend for a
full ten years - well past the original renewal date. We question whether this is wise, at a time
when the industry is poised to expand many -fold and appears be playing catchup with emerging
contaminants in its feedstock and production streams. We suggest that it would be better to defer
that extension until the industry has reached the level top of the s-curve of rapid expansion, and
controls have been well tested to meet the statutory standard of `safe and hygienic' compost.
If the rule does extend the time -period, the rule and hearing officer's report should be explicit
that changes in excluded feedstock, and in standards of what contaminants may be in finished
compost, will trigger immediate modifications to active permits. It is extremely important that
we do not defer compliance with new standards to protect public health and the environment for
up to ten years when facilities' permits are up for renewal.
Submitted by: Jamie Cole & Grady McCallie, North Carolina Conservation Network
Date: August 16, 2019
Agency Response:
Regarding the comment concerning exclusions for feedstock, please see the first
paragraph of DWM's response to Comment #1 under oral comments from the public hearing on
page 8 of this report.
Regarding the comment concerning limits for specific contaminants, please see the first
and second paragraphs of DWM's response to Comment #1 under oral comments from the
public hearing on page 8 of this report.
Regarding the comment concerning anti -microbial bacteria, please see the first paragraph
of DWM's response to Comment #1 under oral comments from the public hearing on page 8 of
this report.
Regarding the comment concerning sampling of nonpoint runoff, please see the third
paragraph of DWM's response to Comment #1 under oral comments from the public hearing on
page 9 of this report.
Regarding the comment concerning environmental justice, please see the fifth paragraph
of DWM's response to Comment #1 under oral comments from the public hearing on page 9 of
this report.
27

A-30
Regarding the comment concerning delaying the proposed extension of permit durations,
please see the sixth paragraph of DWM's response to Comment #1 under oral comments from
the public hearing on page 9 of this report.
HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS
The rule text proposed for adoption is included as Appendix J in the attachments being
presented to the EMC at its September 12th meeting for this agenda item. Since publishing the
proposed rule set in the North Carolina Register, the Solid Waste Section has made additional
amendments to clarify the rule language, correct typographical errors, and address comments
received during the public comment period. These changes do not require OSBM to amend the
Regulatory Impact & Fiscal Analysis, included as Appendix F. The Hearing Officer's
recommendation is that the EMC approve the Regulatory Impact & Fiscal Analysis, readopt
Rules 15A NCAC 13B .1401-.1409 with amendments, and adopt Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1410 as
proposed.

A-31
APPENDIX A
Hearing Officer Memorandum
29

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Roy Cooper, Governor David W. Anderson
Michael S. Regan, Secretary Gerard P. Carroll
Charles Carter
Marion Deerhake
Charles B. Elam
Mitch Gillespie
Steve Keen
May 21, 2019
MEMORANDUM
To: Shannon M. Arata
Member of the Environmental Management Commission
From: Dr. A. Stanley Meiburg,4
Chairman of Environmental Management Commission
Subject: Hearing Officer Appointment
A-32
John D. Solomon
Chairman
Julie A. Wilsey
Vice Chairman
Dr. Suzanne Lazorick
Dr. Stan Meiburg
Manning Puette
Dr. Albert R. Rubin
Clyde E. Smith, Jr.
Richard Whisnant
A public hearing has been scheduled for July 16, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Training Room
(Room 1210) of the Green Square building located at 217 West Jones Street, Raleigh to accept
comments on the proposed amendments and readoption of 15A NCAC 13B Section .1400 Solid
Waste Compost Facilities rules.
I am hereby appointing you to serve as hearing officer for this hearing. Please receive all
relevant public comment and report your findings and recommendations to the Environmental
Management Commission. Ms. Jessica Montie will provide staff support for you.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jessica Montie at [phone].
ASM/lct
cc: Lois Thomas
Jessica Montie
Hearing Record
30

A-33
APPENDIX B
Hearing Attendance Sheet
31

ATTENDANCE SHEET - RALEIGH PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED RULES A-34
15A NCAC 13B SECTION .1400 SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
If you do not wish to speak, you may submit written comments to lessica.montleAncdenr. ov by August 16, 2019.
PRINT NAME AFFILIATION E-MAIL PLEASE U
WOULD LIKE TO BE
(Resident, Elected Official, Other) (if you wish to receive updates) CALLED UP TO SPEAK
� 4
V5 ITIV
5 6
VZ8 R�jt 5,
Id. VowKa. Dc-Q
atA L.&v r0. L Gp r,.ar of D�Q
LD
W, 44%it0V\ i, CAC
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 32

A-35
APPENDIX C
Hearing Officer Script
33

A-36
I am calling this public hearing to order.
My name is Shannon Arata and I am a member of the Environmental Management Commission.
I am the presiding officer for this evening's hearing.
This public hearing is being held by the Environmental Management Commission to solicit
written and oral comments on rules relating to Solid Waste Compost Facilities. The
Environmental Management Commission is granted authority in the North Carolina General
Statutes to adopt certain rules following the procedures specified in General Statute 150B.
Accordingly, a public notice containing the proposed rules under consideration was published in
the June 17, 2019 edition of the North Carolina Registerand on the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) website, and was sent by e-mail to interested parties including, but not limited to,
advocacy groups, local government contacts, and industry contacts. The audio of this hearing
is being recorded for the record.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comments on 15A NCAC 13B Rules .1401 -
.1410 for Solid Waste Compost Facilities, which collectively establish standards for the
production, classification, allowable uses, and application rates of compost at solid waste
compost facilities. Amendments to these rules are being considered by the Environmental
Management Commission as part of the readoption process pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.3A, which
requires that existing rules be reviewed every 10 years.
As the hearing officer, it is my responsibility to listen to your comments and assist in the
preparation of the hearing report, which summarizes the information presented tonight, all
comments received tonight and throughout the comment period, and provides recommendations
to the Commission on the proposed rule -making. The Commission will make the decision on
the final action, which may be to accept the hearing officer's recommendations, modify them, or
take a different course of action. As it now stands, the Commission should consider the adoption
of the proposed rules at their September 12, 2019 meeting in Raleigh. The Commission is
interested in your comments on these rules to help them decide what the final rule language
should be for their consideration. The Commission is not only seeking your comments on the
proposed rule language, but also on the Regulatory Impact Analysis document.
Information on these rules has been available on the DEQ website since June 17, 2019. The
documents on the website include proposed wording of the rules, an explanation of the rules,
information on the public comment period and contact information for submitting written
comments, and information on the possible impacts from the rules as provided in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis. A fact sheet that summarizes the rule changes and includes a link to these
documents can be found at the table in the entryway.
If anyone has written comments they would like to provide, including any speakers who have
written copies of their comments, please provide them to the staff before leaving today. Written
comments prepared after the hearing may be submitted by e-mail or US Mail to Jessica Montie
at the address provided in the information available at the back of the room today or on the DEQ
website. All comments received by August 16, 2019 will be included in the public comment
record. Equal weight is given to both written and oral comments.
34

A-37
I appreciate everyone's attendance and would like to take this time to recognize any public
officials in attendance tonight.
(Introduce any public officials or other EMC members that wish to be recognized.
Staff from the registration table will provide a list if any public officials sign in)
Now I would like to invite any additional public or elected officials to stand and introduce
themselves.
I would also like to recognize members of the DEQ staff that are here. Will you please raise your
hands?
At this time, I will provide an overview of how the meeting will be conducted:
1. 1 will call on speakers in the order they signed up to speak. If you wish to speak and have
not yet signed up, you still have the opportunity to do so at the table in the entryway.
2. When your name is called, please come to the microphone, and clearly state your name
and any group you may be representing or affiliated with.
3. Each speaker will be limited to 3 - 5 minutes so that everyone who wishes to speak has
an opportunity to do so. Staff will keep track of the time and raise a sign to indicate when
you have 1 minute remaining and when you have 30 seconds remaining to finish your
comments.
(Adjust the time limit as needed if a very large crowd attends.)
4. All public comments will be directed to me as the hearing officer.
5. 1 ask that everyone respect the right of others to speak without interruption.
6. Please keep your comments concise and limit them to the proposed rulemaking.
7. At the end of the meeting, if time remains, we will ask if anyone who did not sign up would
now like the chance to speak.
At this time, staff from the Division of Waste Management will provide a short overview
of the rule changes.
(Slide presentation)
35

A-38
I will now call on speakers that signed up to give comments.
(call speakers in the order that they registered)
Is there anyone else who did not sign up to speak but would now like to provide a comment on
the rules?
(call speakers as they volunteer — keep to the time limit until everyone has a chance to
speak)
I would like to thank everyone for attending tonight's hearing. Your input is greatly appreciated.
If there are no more comments, then this hearing is closed.
The public comment period will remain open until August 16, 2019. Written comments
may be submitted to Jessica Montie at the email address or mailing address provided in
the information available at the back of the room.
36

A-39
APPENDIX D
Division of Waste Management Presentation
37

i� irk
yy z�
Y .
� J t
NOF�TKGAF
~ Department o
Environmental Quality

Overview
Akk
• The Environmental Management Commission and the Division of Waste
Management are accepting comments on proposed changes to existing rules 15A
NCAC 13B Section .1400 "Solid Waste Compost Facilities".
• Existing Rules .1401 - .1409 collectively establish standards for the production,
classification, allowable uses, and application rates of compost at solid waste
management facilities; and are proposed for readoption pursuant to G.S. 15013-
21.3A. Rule .1410 is a proposed new rule for facility closure requirements.
• The Rules Review Commission established a deadline of April 30, 2021 for the
readoption of rules in 15A NCAC 13B Solid Waste Management.
• The EMC and the Division are also accepting comments on the regulatory impact
analysis for the proposed changes. -, �—D, E
NORTH CAROL
Department of Environmental Quality
39
2

A-42
Compost Permits from Other Divisions rr r,i
• Facilities with animal manure or wastewater treatment biosolids constituting more
than 50 percent of the nitrogenous feedstock for compost are permitted by the DEQ
Division of Water Resources (DWR) under Rules 15A NCAC 2T .1101 through .1111
which were readopted in September 2018.
• Link to Rules 15A NCAC 2T .1101 through .1111:
http://reports.oah .state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20quaIity/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20t/subchapter%20t%20rules. pd
f
NORTH CAROLINA
141)
Department of Environmental Quality
3

A-43
Summary of Rule Changes
• Proposed rule changes include the following (see Fact Sheet):
• Technical Corrections and Updates (multiple changes throughout rules)
• Permit Period (.1401)
• Criteria for Small &Large Facilities (1402)
• Exemptions (from Rules or from Permitting Requirements) (.1402)
• Permit Applications (.1405)
• Odor Control & Odor Corrective Action (.1405 and. 1406)
• Training Requirements (1406)
• Testing Requirements (1407)
• Demonstration Pilot Project Approvals (.1409)
• Vermicomposting & Anaerobic Digestion (1409)
• Closure Requirements (1410 new)
D7E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
41
N

A-44
Rule Making Schedule
Approval of Rule Text to go to EMC / GWWMC
Approval of Rule and RIA for public comment / EMC
Public Comment Period
Public Hearing
Approve Hearing Officer's Report, Reg. Impact Analysis, Adopt
Rules / EMC
Approval of Rules / RRC
Proposed effective date
Date
March 13, 2019
May 9, 2019
June 17, 2019 —August 16, 2019
July 16, 2019
September 12, 2019
October 17, 2019
November 1, 2019
NORTH CAROLINA
141)
Department of Environmental Quality
42

By Email:
jessica.montie(a-)-ncdenr.gov
By US Mail:
Jessica Montie
Div. of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1646
NORTH CAROLINA
141)
Department of Environmental Quality
I
43

A-46
APPENDIX E
Notice and Proposed Rule Text

TITLE 15A — DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
A-47
Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 150E-21.2 and G.S. 150B-21.3A(c)(2)g. that the Environmental Management
Commission intends to adopt the rule cited as 15A NCAC 13B .1410 and readopt with substantive changes the rules cited as 15A NCAC
13B. 1401-.1409.
Link to agency website pursuant to G.S. 150B-19.1(c): https:lldeq.nc.gov/permits-regulations/rules-regulations/proposed-main
Proposed Effective Date: November 1, 2019
Public Hearing:
Date: July 16, 2019
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Location: NCDEQ Green Square Building, 217 West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27603, Room 1210
Reason for Proposed Action: Rules 15A NCAC 13B .1401-.1409 Solid Waste Compost Facilities are proposed for readoption to
comply with the Rule Review requirements pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.3A. Proposed amendments to these rules include changes to
requirements based on stakeholder input to the permit period, criteria for designation of small and large facilities, permitting
exemptions, permit applications, and demonstration approvals; and the addition of requirements based on stakeholder input for odor
control and corrective action, compost training, and vermicomposting and anaerobic digestion. Proposed amendments also include
technical corrections and updates to general information, clarification of vague or unclear language, removal of redundant or
unnecessary language. Rule .1410 is proposed for adoption by the agency to address a need for compost facility closure requirements.
Comments may be submitted to: Jessica Montie, NC DEQ Division of Waste Management, Attn: Jessica Montie, 1646 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646; phone [phone]; [e-mail]
Comment period ends: August 16, 2019
Procedure for Subjecting a Proposed Rule to Legislative Review: If an objection is not resolved prior to the adoption of the rule, a
person may also submit written objections to the Rules Review Commission after the adoption of the Rule. If the Rules Review
Commission receives written and signed objections after the adoption of the Rule in accordance with G.S. 15013-21.3(b2) from 10 or
more persons clearly requesting review by the legislature and the Rules Review Commission approves the rule, the rule will become
effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(bl). The Commission will receive written objections until 5:00 p.m. on the day following the
day the Commission approves the rule. The Commission will receive those objections by mail, delivery service, hand delivery, or
facsimile transmission. If you have any further questions concerning the submission of objections to the Commission, please call a
Commission staff attorney at 919-431-3000.
Fiscal impact. Does any rule or combination of rules in this notice create an economic impact? Check all that apply.
® State funds affected
® Local funds affected
❑ Substantial economic impact (>_ $1,000,000)
® Approved by OSBM
❑ No fiscal note required
SUBCHAPTER 13B - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION .1400 - SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
15A NCAC 13B .1401 REQUIREMENT FOR PERMIT
(a) All per -sons whR� . . . Ir ineludes the pr-eduetien of eampost f+em solid waste or- solid waste ee eefflpasted'A4h OtLer- wastes
Divisieff. No person shall construct, operate, expand, or modify a facility that produces compost from solid waste or solid waste co -
composted with other wastes unless it has been issues a currently. valid for a solid waste compost facility y the Division, except
as provided for in Rule .1402(t) and (a) of this Section. This pr-evisien alse applies to f ,.,hies that a ept ste foer- pr-eduee , est e
mulch from yard waste or from residues from agriciAbi a! products and processing. General Provisions,Siting,- provisions, siting, design,
application, operational, distribution, and reporting requirements shall be in accordance with Rules z4�2�1403, .1404�1405, .1406,
.1 ^. 1 0 .1402 through .1408 of this Section.
(b) Plans for a Large Type 3 or Type 4 Solid Waste Compost Facility Permit, or a permit for any facility located over a closed -out
disposalare area, shall be submitted with the permit application in accordance with Rule .020 .0202(a)(3) of this Subchapter. A
minimum of f „« sots of plans shall be submitted within o.,..h application-.
(c) Compost permits shall be issued for a period of not more than 10 years. An application for renewal of a permit shall be submitted
no less than four months prior to expiration of the existing permit.
(d) Permit modifications.
A major modification shall be required for any of the following: a change in either property or facility perator or
ownership, a change in facility type as defined inftle .1402 of this Section, an expansion or relocation of the approved

operations area or a substantial change to the operations or design plan. A major modification requires an application
submitted to the Division in accordance with Rule .1405 of this Section, including revised design an erational
plans and drawings.
A minor modification shall include a change in the design or operational plan that does not require a substantial change
to the design and operations plan and drawings. A minor modification that is approved by the Division shall be
approved by written notification. The approval shall be added as an addendum to the approved plan.
An approved major modification shall result in the issuance of a new permit with an expiration no more than 10 years
from the time of issuance in accordance with Para rg anh (c) of this Rule if the modification application meets the
criteria for a permit renewal.
(e) For purposes of this Section, 'operations area" means the total area used for mixing, grinding processing composting curing, and
wood waste and feedstock unloading and storage_ Operations area shall not include buffer areas.
(f) For purposes of the Section, "material onsite" means wood wastes, feedstocks, mixtures, and active and curing compost, but shall
not include finished product.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
Amended Eff. May 1, 1996.. 1996;
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1402 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this Rule shall apply to the following facilities:
W facilities that produce compost or mulch from yard waste or from residues from agricultural products and processing;
Q vermicomposting facilities;
anaerobic digestion facilities; and
(4) compost facilities that compost solid waste or co -compost solid waste with sludges that are not classified as a solid
waste fie; functioning as a nutrient source.
Facilities that co -compost with sewage sludge shall comply with all applicable 11 federal regulations regarding sludge
management at in 40 CFR 501 and 503. 40 CFR 503, subpart B is hereb incorporated by rye; reference including subsequent
amendments er additions. - ass and editions. Copies of the Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained from the U.S. Government
Solid Waste � fien ..t 40 Ob is
Pu is mg Office we site at www.gpo.gov oo..a .. as�� oee�.o.. a��o.,.,�oer..n Read, Saute 150, Raleigh, NC 27605 at no cost.
Lc)(b) The provisions of this Section de shall not apply to compost facilities that compost only wastewater treatment sludge with
rnunie. solid waste functioning only as a bulking agent.
(e) Solid Waste Compost Facilities that have been permitted prior- to the effeetive date of this Rule shall meet the requirements of this
Seetion within one year of the effective date of this Rule, or-, within two years if more than one hundred thousand dollars ($ 100,000) of
capital iiwestment is necessary to comply with changes.
(d) Solid waste compost produced outside the State of North Carolina and imported into the state shall comply with the requirements
specified in Rule .1407 of this Section.
(e) Compost that is disposed shall not eount tewafd waste r-eduetien gaa1s,
Le)(#) Solid waste compost facilities shall be classified based on the types and amounts of materials to be composted.
(1) Type 1 facilities may receive yard and garden waste, silvicultural waste, and untreated and unpainted wood waste
waste. ,.,binmia thereof.
(2) Type 2 facilities may receive pre -consumer meat -free food processing waste, vegetative agricultural waste, source
separated paper paper, or and other source separated specialty waste wastes that are low in pathogens and
physical contaminants. Waste acceptable for a Type 1 facility may be composted at a Type 2 facility.
(3) Type 3 facilities may receive manures and other agricultural waste, meat, post consumer source separat post -
consumer source -separated food wastes wastes, and other source separated special , source -separated specialty
wastes or any combination thereo that are ro'er low in physical contaminants, contaminants but may have high
levels of pathogens. Waste acceptable for a Type 1 or 2 facility may be composted at a Type 3 facility.
(4) Type 4 facilities may receive mixed ffmnieipal solid • aste post ealleetion se fa4ea oo oa • ante, industrial
solid waste, non solid non -solid waste sludges functioning as a nutrient source or other similar compostable organic
wastes wastes, or any combination thereof. Waste acceptable for a Type 1, 2 2 or 3 facility may be composted at a
Type 4 facility.
(5) The listed waste types in Subparagraph f f"(Q of this RtAe Paragraph shall be considered to be low in pathogens
and physical contaminants if handled so as to prevent development of contaminants or exposure to physical
contamination. The listed waste types in Subparagraph (f)(3)(3) of this Rule Paragraph are likely to have high
pathogens and low physical contamination. In determining whether a specific waste stream shall be is acceptable for
composting in a Type 2 or Type 3 facility, the Division shall consider the method of handling the waste prior to
delivery to the facility as well as the physical characteristics of the waste. Testing for pathogens and physical
contaminants may shall be required where if a determination cannot be made based upon prior knowledge of the waste.
Test methods and constituents tested shall be in ae comply with Rule .1407(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(5) of this Section.
(6) Small facilities.
Small Type 1 facilities shall have an operations area less than two acres in size and shall be limited to no
more than 6,000 cubic yards material onsite at any given time, including finished product.
.e

Small Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities shall have an operations area less than two acres in size and shall be limited
to no more than 1,000 cubic yards material onsite at any given time.
processSmall f4eilities afe these thm Feeeive less than 1000 e4ie yards of material for- ee ..I -I, I-- I-arter, and-
(7) Large facilities.
Large Type 1 facilities shall have an operations area of two or more acres in size or have more than 6,000
cubic yards material onsite at any given time.
Large Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities shall have an operations area of two or more acres in size or have more than
1,000 cubic yards material onsite at any given time.
Large facilities are those that receive 1000 cubic yards or more of material for eomposting per quarter- e
occupy two acres or more of land, except that a Large Type 1 facility shall process or store more than 6,000-
,., bic yards .,Fmaterial p quarter-.
r .�, n per-4 :s . required for- the following por t: ,s. The following operations shall be exempt from the requirements of this
Section:
(1) Baekyafd ram„asting. backyard composting;
(2) Fafmia farming operations and silvicultural operations wker-e if the compost is produced from materials grown on
the owner's land and re -used on the owner's land or in associated farming operations and not offered to the „
public and;
(33,) persons receiving no more than 30 cubic yards of leaves from an offsite source on an annual basis.
Small Type 1 Facilities meeting the following conditions:
l3l C` 'T
Notification of the Solid Waste Section prior- to operation and on an annual basis as
C'7Facility locatiow,
i(i) 1�T.,me address .,n phone number ber .,Fowner .,n operator-;
> i">
l"'IType and amount of wastes received;
intended distfibu4ion of the finished pr-oduet.
C�7 Agr-eemen4 to eper-a4e in aeeer-danee with operational r-e"ir-effief4s as set foFth in Rule and the sethaeks in
Faeility operates in aeeor-da-nee with all other- stme or- Weal laws, C�J
C�7 >fules,
regulations or- orders.
C"f
•
(g) The following
operations shall be exempt from the permitting requirements in Rule .1405 of this Section:
Small Type
1 Facilities meeting the following conditions:
notification of the Division prior to operation and on an annual basis as to:
0 the facility location;
ii the name(s) and contact information of the owner and operator;
type and amount of wastes received;
iv the composting process to be used;
(y) the intended distribution of the finished product; and
vi for new facilities only, a letter from the unit of government havingzoning oningjurisdiction over the site
that states that the proposed use is allowed within the existingzoning, oning if any, and that any necessary
zoning approval or permit has been obtained;
the facility operates in accordance with the operational requirements as set forth in Rule .1406(1) through
(11) and (16) of this Section and the setbacks in Rule .1404(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this Section;
the facility operates in accordance with all other state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders;
the facility shall not be located over a closed -out disposal site; and
M
the safety measures shall be taken to prevent fires and access to fire equipment or fire -fighting services shall
be provided.
(22,)
Compost facilities meeting the following conditions:
the site may receive for compostingj2re- and post -consumer food waste, manure, vegetative agricultural
waste, yard and garden waste, land -clearing debris, untreated and unpainted wood waste, and source
separated paper;
material onsite, not including finished compost, shall not exceed 100 cubic yards at any time;
the operations area shall be less than 1.0 acres total;
the site operates in accordance with operational requirements as set forth in Rule .1406 of this Section and
the setbacks in Rule .1404(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this Section, except that the buffer between property line
and operations area shall be at least 50 feet and the buffer between the operations area and residences or
dwellings not owned and occupied by the operator shall be at least 200 feet;
the site operates in such a manner that dust and odors do not constitute a public nuisance;
for facilities producing compost that is distributed to the public or used in public areas, compost produced
from the facility shall meet the pathogen testing and record keeping requirements per Rule .1407(b) and Rule
.1408(a) of this Section; and
(GG,) the site operates in accordance with all applicable State or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, or orders.
47

History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991; A-50
Amended Eff. May 1, 1996.. 1996;
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1403 GENERAL PROHIBITIONS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
(a) Neither hazardous waste nor asbestos eeotai asbestos -containing waste shall be accepted at a facility or processed into compost.
(b) Household hazardous waste shall not be accepted by a facility, except in an area designated by facility site plans for storage, and
shall not be processed into compost.
(c) Any compost Compost made from solid waste .c that cannot be used pursuant to the requirements of this Rule shall be
reprocessed or disposed of pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 13B.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
Amended Eff. May 1, 1996.. 1996;
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1404 SITING/DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
(a) A site shall meet the following requirements of this Rule at the time of initial permitting and shall continue to meet these requirements
throughout the life of the permit only on the site property owned or controlled by the applicant or by the landowner(s) at the time of
petting: permitting.
(1) A site located in a floodplain shall not restrict the flow of the 100-year €leed; flood, reduce the temporary storage
capacity of the floodplain; floodplain, or result in washout of solid waste waste, so as to pose a hazard to human life,
wildlife, land land, or water reseurees; resources.
(2) A 100-foot minimun buffer is shall be maintained required between all property lines and compost areas for Type 3
and 4 facilities, 50-foot for Type 1 or 2 fne,T facilities.
(3) A 500-foot minimu buffer is shall be maintained require between compost areas and residences or dwellings not
owned and occupied by the permittee, except that Type 1 and Small Type 2 and 3 facilities shall havve maintain a 200-
foot ff iinimum btiffer, buffer.
(4) A 100-foot minimu buffer is shall be maintained require between all wells and compost areas, except monitoring
wells; wells.
(5) A 50-foot minimu buffer is shall be maintained required between perennials streams and rivers and
compost areas; areas.
(6) A compost facility shall be located in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0200, Classification and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters in North Carolina.
(7) All portions of any a compost facility located over a closed -out disposal area shall be designed with a pad adequate to
protect the disposal area cap from being disturbed, as defined in Part (a)(10)(E) of this Rule, and there shall be no
runoff from the pad onto the cap or side slopes of the closed out area; area.
(8) A 25-foot minimum distance is shall be maintained required between compost areas and swales or berms; berms to
allow for- adequa4e 0 of fire fighting equipmefft;
(9) A site shall meet the following surface water requirements:
(A) A a site shall not cause a discharge of materials or fill materials into waters or wetlands of the state that is in
violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(B) A a site shall not cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the state that is in violation of the requirements
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), under pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act; and
(C) A a site shall not cause non -point source pollution of waters of the state that violates assigned water quality
standards.
(10) A site shall meet the following groundwater and operations area pad requirements:
(A) A a site shall not contravene groundwater standards as established under pursuant to 15A NCAC 0
(B) the operations area of Type 1, 2, and 3 facilities shall have one of the following_
a soil pad with a soil texture finer than loamy sand. For a Type 1 or 2 facility, the depth to the
seasonal high water table shall be maintained at least 12 inches. For a Type 3 facility, the depth to
the seasonal high water table shall be maintained at least 24 inches; or
ii a pad in accordance with Part (C) of this Subparagraph;
provided;Portions of a site used for waste receipt and storage, active composting, and curing shall have a soil
texlufe finer - I d and the depth to the seasonal high water table shall be maintained
least 12 inches for a Type 1 of 2 facility and 24 inches for a Type 3 facility, unless a pad is
(C) the operations area of a Type 4 facility shall have a pad with a linear coefficient of permeability no greater
than 1 x 10-' cm/sec. The pad shall consist of one of the following_
a non -soil pad, such as concrete and asphalt, designed and constructed to meet the weight
requirements of the compost operation and to prevent infiltration of liquids to groundwater; or
ii a soil pad of at least 18 inches constructed in accordance with Rule .1624(a)(8) and Rule .1621 of
this Subchapter. A 12-inch soil layer shall bg maintained over the pad to protect it from damage and
desiccation: and 48

a
A pad shall be provided for portions of a Type 4 facility used for waste receiving and st,
fe, active
composting, ^ g; A-5
(D) A pad is not fequir-ed for- stofage of finished pr-e&et that is dried so as to pass the Paint Filter- Ini"ids Test
(EPA Method 9095), and fef whieh the stofage area is pfepar-ed in suoh a manner- that wa4ef does not eellee
afound the base of the stored ffmer-i ' finished product shall be stored where the depth to the seasonal
high water table is maifftaine at least 12 inches below ground surface. inehes; an
(lam) The linear- eeeffieient of pefmeability of pads fe"ir-ed in aeeofdanee with this Rule shall not be gr-emer- than
! x 10( 7) eefftiffietefs pef seeond. if natufal soils afe used, the linef must be at least 18 inches .
(b) For Subpar-agraphs (a)(2) thfough (a)(4) and Part (a)(10)(B) of this Rule, (dependent upon waste t�Te, f4eility design, and regi
topography) altemative minimum buffers or requirements may be increased if deemed necessary by the Division in order- to protect
publie health and the environment or to prevent the oreation of a nuisance-.
( For Subparagraphs phs (a)(2) through (a)(4) and Part (a)(10)_(B) of this Rule, alternative minimum buffers or requirements may be
increased, based on the waste type, facility design, and regional topography, if necessary protect public health and the environment
or to prevent the creation of a nuisance.
(c) A site shall meet the following design requirements:
(1) A a site shall not allow uncontrolled public access;
(2) A a site shall meet the requirements of the Sedimentation Pellutio Control Law (15A NCAC 04)• 4)--,
(3) A a site shall meet the requirements of the Air Pollution Control Requirements (15A NCAC 24)) 02D to minimize
fugitive emissions and odors; and
(4) A a site shall be designed to minimize odors at the property boundary.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
Amended Eff. May 1, 1996. 1996:
Readopted Eff.' November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1405 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
(a)- One paper copy and one electronic copy of a solid waste compost facility permit application shall be submitted to the Division. The
following information is shall be required for an application for a permit to construct and operate a proposed Type ' or ^ Small Type ''
sr- 3 solid waste eempest f ^' * ; Large Type 1, Small or Large Type 2 or 3 or all Type 4 solid waste compost facilities unless the
permitting requirements are exempted by ParagFaph(g) of Pale .1402 Rule .1402(g) or (h) of this Section:
(I) the name and contact information of the facility owner and operator;
documentation of property ownership, including
Ca) the property owners;
b a current property deed; and
Cc) a notarized acknowledgement letter from the landowner of use of the property as a solid waste facility if
landowner is not the facility owner or operator.
QJ(4) An an aerial photograph or scaled drawing, where one ineb ^ at a scale of one inch to less than or equal to 400 feet,
accurately showing the area within one-fourth mile of the proposed site's boundaries with the following specifically
identified:
La)(A) Entire the entire property owned or leased by the person proposing the facility;
1]2)(B) Lesatiea the location of all homes, wells, industrial buildings, public or private utilities; roads; wm se ;
des; utilities, roads, watercourses, and other applicable information regarding the general topography
within 500 feet of the proposed facility; and
Cc)(C) Land the land use zoning of the proposed site.
(4)(2) A for all new sites, a letter from the unit of government having zoning jurisdiction over the site which that states that
the proposed use is allowed within the existing zoning, if any, and that any necessary zoning ^^^r^ ^' ^r .o mit has
been obtained. approvals or permits have been obtained;
(D(r) An an explanation of how the site complies with siting and design standards in required by Rule .1404 of this Seetio.
Section;
�0(4) A a detailed report indicating the following:
La)(A) Waste per, the waste types, the source and estimated quantity of the solid waste to be fisted,
composted including the source and expected quantity of any bulking agent or amendment (if applicable),
aey expected reeyele recycling of bulking agent or compost, and aff seasonal variations in the solid waste
type or quantity; and
b(B) For for facilities that use use natural soils as a pad, a soil evaluation of the site conducted by a licensed
soil scientist down to a depth of four €et, feet or to bedrock or evidence of a seasonal high water table, to
owe evaluating all chemical an physical soil properties and depth of the seasonal high water table. table;
tD(5) Site a site plan at a scale ire of one inch is to less than or equal to 100 feet tewon that delineates the following:
(a)(A) Existing the existing and proposed contours, at intervals appropriate to the topography;
bb (4) Lesatierz the location and elevations of dikes, trenches, and other water control devices and structures for the
diversion and controlled removal of surface water;
L&G) Pesigamed the designated setbacks and property lines;
b" Proposed the proposed utilities and structures; and
Le)(€) Areas the areas for unloading, processi1V active composting, curing, and storing of mmer-ial. material;

fD the access roads and details on traffic patterns;
W the wetlands, streams, and 100-year floodplains; and A-52
b the proposed surface and groundwater monitoring locations, if required.
M(6) ^ aeser-i do of the operation of the f edit , whiek ff st inelude at a miniffnnni an operations plan that includes the
following:
La)(A) Name, addfess and phone nu i v the name and contact information for the person responsible for the
operation of the facility;
b(R) List a list of personnel r-eqttired and the responsibilities of each position;
Cc)(C) Operation plan for the facility- a schedule for operations, including days and hours that the facility will be
open, preparations before opening and procedures to be followed after closing for the day;
Cd)" Special special precautions or procedures for operating during wind, heavy rain, snow, freezing or other
adverse conditions;
(e)(€) A a description of actions to be taken to minimize noise, vectors, and air borne particulates, particulates; and
odors; and
(f (F) A a description of the ultimate use for the finished compost, the method for removal from the site, and a
contingency plan for disposal or alternative usage use of residues or finished compost that cannot be used in
the expected manner due to poor quality or change in market ^ems conditions;
(g) contingency plan describing actions to be taken for equipment breakdown, unauthorized waste arrivingat t the
facility,pills, and fires;
b a discussion of compliance with the operational requirements listed in Rule .1406 of this Section; and
0 for Large Type 2 and Type 3 and all Type 4 facilities, include the following_
0 a description of procedures for incoming material inspections;
ii a description of procedures to meet the final product sampling and analysesquirements specified
in in Rule .1407 of this Section;
iii a description of procedures to meet the record keeping requirements specified in Rule .1408 of this
Section; and
iv a copy of all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals necessary for the operation
of the facility.
(D(7} A a report on the design of the facility, including:
La)(A) Design the design capacity of the facility;
b(B) A a process flow diagram of the entire facility, including the type, size, and location of all major equipment,
equipment and feedstock flow streams. The flow streams shall indicate the quantity of materials by on -a we
weight and volume; vole eerie basis.
Cc) a description and sizing of the storage facilities for feedstocks, amendments, and finished compost;
Cd)(q The the means for measuring, shredding, mixing, and proportioning input materials;
(e)(D) Anticipate the anticipated process duration, including receiving, preparation, composting, curing, and
distribution;
Lf (1-} A a description of the location of all temperature, air aim and any other type of monitoring points -,points and
the frequency of monitoring;
(g)(F) A a description of how the temperature control and monitoring equipment will demonstrate that the facility
meets the requirements in Rule .1406(11), (12., or (13) .1406 items (10), "", or ("` of this Section, as
appropriate for the feedstock;
(lh)(G) The the method of aeration provided and the capacity of aeration equipment; and
0(14) A a description of the method to control surface water run-on and mn-effi; run-off and the method to control,
collect, treat, and dispose of leachate generated. generated;
(j) the separation, processing, storage, torage, and ultimate disposal of non-compostable materials, if applicable;
a description of dust control and other air emission control measures; and
(l a description of recycling or other material handling processes used at the facility.
10 Odor Control Plan. Operators of Large Type 2, Large Type 3, and all Type 4 facilities shall prepare, submit to the
Division, and implement an odor control plan that details site specific conditions to meet the design requirement in
Rule .1404(c)(4) of this Section. Existing facilities permitted prior to the readopted effective date of this Rule shall
meet these requirements at the time of permit renewal. The plan shall contain the following;
(a) an identification of all onsite potential odor sources;
( a description of onsite weather conditions that would affect odor migration, such as prevailing wind direction,
topography, and seasonal variations;
(c) plan to monitor onsite odor and record odor data for the odor sources with the potential to migrate offsite.
Data shall include date, time, site specific conditions, weather conditions, and characteristics and intensity of
odor;
( a description of the facility's odor complaint protocol, including forms used, odor verification by perator
both onsite and offsite, what the response will be, and who will be contacted;
(e) a description of complaint record keeping; and
(f) a description of odor control design and operating best management practices to be used onsite, including_
personnel training;
ii feedstock characteristics;
iii the initial mixing of feedstock$(p reach targeted carbon to nitrogen (,C:N) ratios, moisture levels;

iv
maintenance of compost piles for moisture;
(v)
aeration methods, frequency, and protocol; A-53
vi
leachate and liquids management;
vii
weather monitoring and protocol;
viii
management of airborne emissions; and
ix
windrow covering.
f�
.
11 (9) Plans engineering�plans and specifications for the facility, including manufacturer's performance data for all
equipment selected. selected; and
12 a description of procedures for permanent closure of the facility, in accordance with Rule .1410 of this Section, should
the facility close.
(10) A detailed operation and maintenance manual outlining:
A quality assurance plan for the process and final product which lists the procedures used in inspecting
material; monitoring, sampling and analyzing the compost process and final product, testing
0 eep
0 0 0
(B) Gentingeney plans detailing eaffeetive or- r-emedial aetien te be taken in the evefft of equipment br-eakdown;
odor-s; and
_ E7!!EtlEe!1rEli!RR7S'ilrwgvmff'!leltif�l�Rfl1lllRie�l�ReZtIRe:Ef ee!R7:le!f.2ef
compost,

{
for
disposal
finished
that
, and -a
in the
C rl
contingency
plan
,
or alternative
usage
of residues
or
compost
location
eannot
Cn7type,
size, and
of
all major
valumetfie
basis;
lid
Ct7
(D) The
means
hazardous
for measuring,
waste
shredding,
and finished
mixing,
compost;household
and
proportioning
input
materials;
,
C 7
if
,
(F)The
separation,
,
Pfpe
the
,
frequency
(G)
offfi
(��7��� A deser-iption
ite
Wig;
hew
the temperatufe
, air
and any other-
of
monitoring
demonstrate
points,
and
that the
f4eility
(14)
the
ef
in Rule.
1406
eentFel
ltents
and
monitoring
equipment
will
meets
(��
r-e"iremeffts
,
,
,
(4)
A deser-ipfien
the
,
to
the
to
,
(K4
dispose
( ) A description
of
of
leachate generated;
methed
eentrel
an
surfaee
water- nan off-,
handling
and
method
the
facility.
control,
collect,
,
��
of any
recycling
or
other material
processes
used
at
(8,)
Engineering
for the
facility,
including
data for
.
l�7
The following
selected.
information
plans
is
and specifications
for-
for-
manufaetwer's
to
Type
performance
4
Imar-ge
all
Type 2 3
equipment
(e)
eampesting f
44
Cafftingeney
r-equiFed
reviewing
detailing
an appliemien
a permit apeFate
to be taken
in
a
the
er-
or- solid
breakdev'%;
waste
C'7
plans
eeffeetive
or-
r-emedial
aefien
event
ef
equipment
ai
A detailed
The
design
infer-mation,
diseussien
,
L 7
aper-ation
and maifftena-nee
manual.
manual
in
ffmst eentain
Rule 06
general
this
Section,
detailed
a
information
e
eonTliance
instruction,
with operational
requirements
as outlined
list
.14
of
training,
operational
to be
and
submitted in
A
equipment
compliance
with
for
maintenance,
this Section,
the
of
and safety
final
personnel,
instructions;
required
lists
personnel
the
outline
in
of reports
inspeeting
incoming
-7
quality assurance
plan
process
and
the
product
which
final
proeedufes
used
testing
materials; monitoring,
keeping..tom
sampling
and
analyzing
compost
process
and
product,
schedule, and
record
(T)times,
14ew
fer- the
(S)
star -age eapaeity,
As built dr-a
A
and
..;«..,,.
r-a4es
laeal,
(wet
weight
and velume4fie)
Federal
system
and equipment
for- the
,
the
(6)
('7)
C �capacity,
(d) An
eepy of all
faeility; and
Product .v..,rketi,�....,,,..]
for
applieable
distribution
state,
..1.,,,.
be
and
for
pei:Fnits
and approvals
in faeflity
neeessafy
increase
proper-
in facility
eper-mien
of
application
addition of new
a permit
feedstock materials.
modification
shall
required
changes
ownership,
an
or
His toryNote: Authority G.S.130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
Amended Eff. May 1, 1996.. 1996;
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1406 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
AnY A person who maintains or operates a solid waste compost facility shall maintain and operate the site to conform with the following
pr-aefiees: practices and operational requirements of this Rule.
(1) Plan and Permit Requirements.
fa)W Approved r^ plans and conditions of the permit shall be followed. followed;
(12)(B) A copy of the permit, plans, and operational reports shall be maintained on site at all times.
(2) Adequate er-osi^^ Erosion control measures shall be practiced to prevent on -site erosion and to control the movement
of silt or contaminants from the site.
(3) Stormwater Swface wate shall be diverted from the operations area. ^ r *;^,,,,1 eompest curing,and storage are
(4) Leachate shall be contained on site and treated to meet the standards of the applicable off -site disposal method.
(5) Access and Security Requirements.
La)(A) Large sites shall be secured by means of gates, chains, berms, fences, or other security measures demonstratcd
to provide equivalent protection and be approved by the Division, Division. to prevent ,,..a * er-i ,^a entry,
52

(b)(R) An operator shall be on duty at the site at all times while the facility is open for public use uto ensure
.Bwith it operational r ^�*� and access to such facilities shall be controlled.
Lc)(G) The access road to the site shall be of all-weather construction and maintained. maintained in good eendition
(6) A site shall only accept those solid wastes that it is permitted to receive.
(7) Safety Requirements: Requirements.
La)(A) Open burning of solid waste is shall be prohibited.
02 (-B) Equipment shall be provided to control accidental fires and arrangements made with the local fire protection
agency to provide fire -fighting services when needed.
Cc)(C) Personnel training shall be provided to insure ensure that all employees are trained in site specific safety,
remedial, and corrective action procedures.
(8) Reporting Fires. Fires shall be reported to the Division orally within 24 hours of the incident and in writing within 15
days of the incident.
(D(8) Sign Requirements.
(a)(A) Signs providing information on waste that can may be received, dumping procedures, the hours during which
the site is open for public use, the permit number and other pertinent information shall be posted at the site
entrance.
1]2�(B) Traffics signs and markers shall be provided as neeessar-y to promote an orderly tFa ffie pa"o w
to direct traffic to and from the discharge area and to maintain efficient operating conditions.
L&C4 Signs shall be posted stating that no hazardous waste, asbestos containing waste, or medical waste e-an may
be received at the site.
(10)(9) Monitoring Requirements: Requirements.
Ca)(A) Specified monitoring and reporting requirements shall be met. Temperature monitoring shall meet the record -
keeping requirements in Rule .1408 of this Section.
(lh)(E) The temperature of all compost produced shall be monitored sufficiently to ensure that the pathogen reduction
criteria is are met. Onsite thermometers shall be calibrated annually and records of calibration shall be
maintained.
11 (4-A) Compost process at Type 1 facilities shall be maintained at or above 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees F) - for three
days and aerated to maintain elevated temperatures.
12 "Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR). Types 2, 3 and 4 facilities shall maintain the compost process at a temperature
above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees F) for 14 days or longer and the average temperature for that time shall be
higher than 45 degrees Celsius _113 degrees F (1 13 degrees F) o:, Types 2, 3 a-aaA Fems} }tes shall meet the vesteattraction reduction requirements in 40 CFR 503.33(b)(4) or (7). Requirements of 40 CFR 503.33(b)(4) and (7) are -
hereby incorporated by reference, including any subsequent amendments or additions.
(0)(12) Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFR 1. The composting process shall qualify as a process to further reduce
pathogens for all Type 3 and Type 4 facilities. The following are shall be acceptable methods:
fa)W The the windrow composting method, in which the following requirements apply: Aerobic conditions shall
be maintained during the compost process. A temperature of 131 degrees F (55 degrees Celsius) or greater
shall be Zaint-Rifflead in the windfaw for- at least 15 days. Ddfiag the high temper-atwe period, the NN41dr-e
shall be ttffaed a least five times.
aerobic conditions shall be maintained during the composting process;
ii a temperature of 131 degrees F (55 degrees Celsius) or greater shall be maintained in the windrow
for at least 15 days; and
iii duringthe he high temperature period, the windrow shall be turned at least five times.
(!?)(E) The the static aerated pile composting method, in which the following requirements apply: Aerobic
conditions shall be maintained during the compost process. The temperatwe of the compost piie shall be
main4ained at 131 degrees F (55 degrees Celsius) or greater for at least three days.
(i� aerobic conditions shall be maintained during the composting process; and
ii the temperature of the compost pile shall be maintained at 131 degrees F (55 degrees Celsius)
greater for at least three days.
Lc)W) The the within -vessel composting method, in which the temperature in the compost piles shall be maintained
at a minimal temperature of 131 degrees F (55 degrees Celsius) for three days.
14 (} . Putrescible
feedstocks added to the compost process shall be incorporated in such a manner to control odor.
15 The finished compost shall meet the classification, testing, and distribution requirements in Rule .1407 of this Section.
The amount of compost stored at the facility shall not exceed the designed storage capacity.
(17) The site shall be operated to minimize odors at the property boundary
Odor Corrective Action.
(a) If the Odor Control Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .1405(10) of this Section has been followed and
offsite odors are not being minimized, the owner or operator shall submit for approval by the Division an
Odor Corrective Action Report. The report shall contain the following_
a summary of the actions taken in the Odor Control Plan;
ii an identification of onsite odor sources, in order of severity;
an evaluation and identification of odorous feedstocks as they relate to odor complaints;
iv an evaluation of current operation process indicators including carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio, pH,
moisture content, oxygen levetemperature, porosity, and particle size;

Lv) an evaluation of the compost recipe calculation with C:N ratio testing that is performed by an
independent laboratory for each feedstock;
vi an identification of potential offsite odor receptors based on their proximity to the odor sources and
on weather patterns;
vii a description of new odor reduction methods, if proposed, and an evaluation of their feasibility, in
terms of effectiveness, cost, and equipment needs;
ix an evaluation of the elimination of specific odorous feedstocks; and
(x) recommendations for implementing new odor minimization practices, including a schedule.
The Division may require the elimination of specific odorous feedstocks if a facility fails to meet the odor
minimization criteria required by Item G 7) of this Rule.
Cc) Additional corrective action measures shall be developed and implemented as necessary to meet the
requirements of Item (17) of this Rule to minimize odors at the property boundary
Compost Facility Training Requirements.
(aJ Facilities permitted as Large Type 1, Large Type 2, all Type 3, and all Type 4 shall have an operator,
supervisor, or manager trained in accordance with the requirements in G.S. 130A-309.25.
6) Training from a Division -approved training course shall be required every five years. Approval of
other training to meet this requirement may by e requested by the facility. The Division shall approve
other training in cases where the facility can demonstrate other training is at least equivalent to the
Division -approved training courses.
ii Persons who have achieved and maintain compost manager certification by a Division -approved
compost manager certification program shall be considered as having met these training
requirements for the permitted facility_
Facilities shall be required to provide annual training for facility staff, including a review of the operations
plan and permit documents.
Lc) Documentation of training required in Sub -items (a) and (b) of this Item shall be maintained at the facility
and made available to the Division upon request unless otherwise approved by the Division.
Facilities permitted before the readopted effective date of this Rule shall meet the requirements of Sub -item
(a) of this Item within three years of the readopted effective date of this Rule. Facilities permitted after the
readopted effective date of this Rule shall meet the requirements of Sub -item (a) of this Item within 18 months
of permit issuance.
C4-TI
The finished conipost shall meet the elassifica4ion and distribution requirements outlined in Rule .14 07 of
(/77���� this Section,
The
of the final
roduct shall deter -mine the allowable uses as outlined in
1407 of this
ti/n�t� .
The final product shall be approvedbythe Solid Waste Section as outfined in R-ule.1407 Subparagraph (6)(b)
Ct7
(�vrmrs-vcccxvrr.
i')
Non conipostable solid waste and unacceptable compost shall be disposed in a solid waste
(4)
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
RRC objection Eff. April 18, 1996 due to lack of statutory authority;
Amended Eff. June 1, 1996 1996;
Readopted Ef.November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1407 CLASSIFICATION, TESTING, AND DISTRIBUTION OF
SOLID WASTE COMPOST PRODUCTS
(a) Gefftpost shall not be applied to the land or- sold or- given away if the eeneentr-mioa of any metal exeeeds the eaneentfatien in-40
GFR 502.13(b)(3) ESee Table 1 below], unless the eoneentfmion of all metals afe less than the values in 40 GFR 503.13(b)(1) a -ad r-ee
afe fflaifftained to show eeff1plianee with the ewnulmive and afw-ual metal levels in 4 0 GFR 5 03.13 (b)(2) and (4).
Arsenic 44-
ern -3-9
Copper 4580
Lea4 3-N
Mer-e 4-7
Niekel 420
selefliwa 3-6
54 29N

A-57
Manmade
ade
Gr-ade of inerts Pathogen n,,,auotio
A -F--6 PFRP
13 >6 NA
.r_s:s!+���!tiesr�ees�ee!!�er+':.n�a�eer�:�e�:es��eeeearr�re�e��s�e�
rsessetis:�ees�:eerrfr�rsrerr�s!fsr.
zwrrE
.��
y
■_
in
Crl rade
(7) Rece,v.....ende.] uses;
as ou4ined ,
C=rlAppheatien rateRL�
(4) Restri.tiens ousage;
nA
(5) Total N (for products containing sludge).
(a) Compost or mulch that is produced at a Type 1 facility and that contains minimal pathogenic organisms, is free from offensive odor,
and contains no shamparticles, shall have unrestricted application and distribution. Compost analytical testing shall not be required for
Type 1 compost if temperature requirements in Rule .1406(11) of this Section have been met and documented.
( Compost produced from Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities shall be sampled and analyzed as follows:
a composite sample of the compost produced at each compost facility shall be analyzed at intervals of every 20,000
tons of compost produced or every six months, whichever comes first, for metals and pathogens;
compost samples shall be analyzed for the metals listed in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(3), except that analysis for mercury shall
not be required for Type 2 and 3 facilities, and analysis for arsenic and selenium shall not be required for Type 2
facilities. The concentration of metals in compost offered for sale or distribution to the public shall not exceed the
pollutant concentration limits listed in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(3). 40 CFR 503.13 and 40 CFR 503.32 are incorporated by
reference includingsubsequent amendments and editions. Copies of the Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained
from the U.S. Government Publishing Office website at www.gpo.gov at no cost;
compost samples shall be analyzed for pathogens, either for fecal coliform or salmonella bacteria. The concentration
of pathogens in compost offered for sale or distribution to the public shall not exceed the concentration limits listed
in 40 CFR 503.32(a)(3);
sample collection, preservation, and analysis shall assure valid and representative results. At least three individual
samples of equal volume shall be taken from each batch produced in separate areas along the side of the batch. Each
sampling point shall be sampled from a depth of two to six feet into the pile from the outside surface of the pile as
follows:
metals samples shall be composited and accumulated over a six-month period or at intervals of every 20,000
tons of product produced, whichever comes first; and
pathogens samples shall be a representative composite sample of the compost and shall be processed within
a period of time required by the testing procedure;
analytical testing methods shall be in accordance with the procedures of one of the following_
EPA publication SW-846, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods." This
document is incorporated by reference, includingsubsequent ubsequent amendments and editions, and may be obtained
free of charge at https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846;
the U.S. Department of Auiculture/U.S. Compost Council publication "Test Methods for the Examination
of Composting and Compost" (TMECC). This document is incorporated by reference includingsubsequent
ubsequent
amendments and editions, and may_JK obtained for a fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) at

https://compostingcouncil.org/tmecc/ or a copy may be reviewed at the Division of Waste Mana e
Solid Waste Section office at 217 West Jones Street, Raleigh, N.C. 27603; or
A -bother applicable standards approved by the Division; and
the Division may decrease or increase the parameters to be analyzed or the frequency of analysis based upon
monitoring data, changes in the waste stream or processing, or information regarding'the potential for the presence of
contaminants that are not required to be analyzed in this Para rg anh.
(c) Compost produced from Types 2, 3, and 4 facilities that meet the requirements of Subpara,grgphs (b)(2) and (2Z3) of this Rule shall
be classified Grade A compost and shall have unlimited, unrestricted distribution.
( The facility operator shall be responsible for meetingthe he requirements of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services Plant Industry Division Seed and Fertilizer Section concerning the distribution of this product.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-309. H;
Ef.December 1, 1991;
RRC objection Eff. April 18, 1996 due to lack of statutory authority;
Amended Eff. June 1, 1996r 1996;
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1408 METRODS FOR TESTING. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
.
.eerr�:�es�rs!sae!!e!:rs�re::rs!M1:..:
-------
Parameter U*4 vaeility Test Method
Foreign Matte % all see Subparagraph (d) of this Rule
Gadfnittfn &y NN4. all
chfomium% Type 4
Copper mg4g dry �4. all
Dead%�4. all
Mereur %�4. Type 4
Nieke1 all
sfmg4-g &y'A4. Type
Z4*e fmg4-g &y �A4. all
pathege Soo Appendix 14 all Coo nppeadi 1
Total % see—* Kjeldahl
m
rrea eer:nss �:�!*srssree
- - -
�e�eserrsisrrs:Wr:TmN:zi:�ezen.
rin
'C.'_ ax,
56

Ca)(b) Record Keeping: All facili Facili owners or operators shall record an maintain records for amininium ef no less than five
years. Records The following records shall be available for inspection by Division personnel during normal business hour a d shall be
sent to the Division upon request:
(1) Boily daily operational records must be fftaif4aiaed, which include, a4 ^ minimum, that include temperature data
(length of the composting period) and quantity of material processed;
(2) ^ a� anal3jical results on of compost testing;
(3) The the quantity, type type, and source of waste received;
(4) The the quantity and type of waste processed into compost;
(5) The quanfity an t"e of compost produced by preduet classification; and the odor management records required by
Rule .1405(10) of this Section; and
(6) The the quantity " of compost removed for use or disposal, , by preduet elass fin^* ^r, disposal and the market
or permitted disposal facility.
(h)(0 Annual Reporting: An annual report for the period July 1 to June 30 shall be submitted by all facility owners or operators to the
Division by August 1, 1996 and ever —by August 1 of each year s and shall contain:
(1) The the facility name, address, and permit number;
(2) The the total quantity in tons, with sludge values expressed in dry weight, and the type of waste received at the facility
during the year covered by the report, including tons of waste received from local governments of origin;
year-(-3) The total "antity in tons, with sludge values expr-essed in dry weight, a -ad type of waste pr-eeessed into eempost
dufing the eev^ ^
�D(4) The the total quantity in tons and type of compost produced at the f edity, by p .^"et elan "fin^` ^�, facility during
the year covered by the report;
(4)(5) The the total quantity in tons " of compost removed for use or disposal from the facility, by produe
classification,along with ^ general description of the market if for use facility during the year covered by the report;
(5)(6) #tenthly monthly temperature monitoring to support Rule .1406 of this Section; and
(0(7) Results of tests required i Table 3 of this n„'^ the results of analytical testing required by Rule .1407 of this Section.
L(4) Yearly totals of solid waste received and composted shall be reported back to the local government of origin for annual recycling
reporting.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
RRC objection Eff. April 18, 1996 due to lack of statutory authority;
Amended Eff. June 1, 1996 1996;
Readopted Eff.November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1409 ^ PPROI ^ r OF ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES AND PROCEDURES, VERMICOMPOSTING,
AND ANAEROBIC DIGESTION REQUIREMENTS
(a) An owner or operator of a composting facility, facility subject to the provisions of this lie Section may request in writing the
approval of an alternative procedure for the facility or the compost that is produced. The following information shall be submitted to the
Solid Waste Section:
(1) The the specific facility for which the exception is requested;
(2) The the specific provisions of this Section for which the exception is requested;
(3) The the basis for the exception;
(4) The the alternate procedure or requirement for which the approval is sought and a demonstration that the alternate
procedure or requirement provides equivalent protection of the public health and the environment; and
(5) A a demonstration of the effectiveness of the proposed alternate procedure.
(Vermicompost Facilities. This Paragraph shall be applicable to vermicompost facilities that receive solid waste as defined in G.S.
130A-290. Facilities that receive only animal manure or only municipal wastewater treatment sludge, or both, shall not be subject to
this Paragraph.
The following operations shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section:
backyard vermicomposting; and
farming operations where the vermicompost is produced from materials grown on the owner's land and re-
used on the owner's land.
(22,) Vermicompost facilities meeting the following conditions shall be exempt from the permitting requirements in Rule
.1405 of this Section;
the site receives pre- and post -consumer food waste, manure, vegetative agricultural waste, yard and garden
waste, untreated, unpainted, and uncontaminated wood material, source separated paper, or any combination
thereof,
no more than 100 cubic yards of material shall be onsite at any time. This volume shall include feedstock
storage, processing, pre -composting, and active vermicomposting, but shall not include finished
vermicompost;
outdoor areas of the site used for feedstock storage, processingpre-composting, or vermicomposting in open
areas or open containers or bins shall meet the siting criteria and setback requirements of Rule .1404(a)(1)
through (a)(10) of this Section, except that the minimum setback to the property line shall be at least 50 feet
and the minimum setback to residences or dwellings not owned and occupied by the owner or operator shall
be at least 200 feet; 57

outdoor feedstock storage, processing, pre -composting, and vermicomposting o erations areas that are
enclosed on all sides in containers or bins shall maintain a minimum setback to the property IN(PU at least
25 feet;
the site operates in such a manner that dust and odors do not constitute a public nuisance;
surface water shall be diverted from the operational and storage areas. Leachate shall be contained onsite and
treated to meet the standards of the applicable off -site disposal method;
for facilities producing vermicompost that is distributed to the public or used in public areas, the owner meets
the pathogen testing and record keeping requirements of Rule .1407(b) and .1408(a) of this Section for a
Type 3 facility; and
the site operates in accordance with all applicable State or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, or orders.
A permit shall be required for vermicompost facilities that do not meet the conditions of Subparagraphs (1) or (2) of
this Paragraph.AA permit application for a vermicompostin facility acility shall include the information required by Rules
.1404 and .1405 of this Section, except that Rules .1405(9)(fl through (9)(h) of this Section do not apply. Operations
or parts of operations that are indoors shall be exempt from the siting requirements of Rule .1404 of this Section.
Permitted vermicomposting facilities shall be subject to:
the operational requirements of Rule .1406(1) through (9), (14), and (16) of this Section;
the sampling and testing requirements of Rule .1407 of this Section;
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of Rule .1408 of this Section; and
the closure requirements of Rule .1410 of this Section.
(c) Anaerobic Digestion Facilities. This Paragraph shall be applicable to anaerobic digestion facilities that receive solid waste as defined
in G.S. 130A-290. Facilities that receive only animal manure or only municipal wastewater treatment sludge, or both, shall not be subject
to this Paragraph.
A solid waste management permit shall be required for the areas of the facility that manage solid waste. These areas
shall include the incoming waste receiving area, the digestate handling area, and the digestate final disposition and
any other areas of the operation where solid waste is exposed to the environment.
A permit application shall contain:
the information required by Rules .1404 and .1405 of this Section, with the exception of Rule .1405(9)(t)
through (9)(h).Operations or parts of operations that are in buildings enclosed on all sides shall be exempt
from the siting requirements of Rule .1404 of this Section; and
detailed drawings of the following within the waste management areas:
hoppers, bays, or vessels, and all other site -specific features related to solid waste management
activities; and
ii for indoor operations, plan and profile drawings of the buildings with areas and features labeled.
Permitted anaerobic digestion facilities shall be subject to:
the operational requirements of Rule .1406(1) through (9), (14), and (16) of this Section;
the sampling and testing requirements of Rule .1407 of this Section for the digestate;
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of Rule .1408 of this Section; and
(D) the closure requirements of Rule .1410 of this Section.
evaluming the ftasibility of stiek a prejeet. The following iafat:Fna4iea shall be submitted to the Selid Waste Seetien:
Cal ,
l3lproject;
(4) ;
l5l The basis for running the pilot or demonstration project;
(6) A description of all testing procedures to be used;
P7description of the process to be used, including the method of composting and details of the method of ;
l(�pp9�l�product;
and
An eu4liae of the final r-epei4 to be s4mit4ed te the Solid Waste Seetion upon eeff1pletieff ef the preje
(e) For- Pafagr-aph (a) of this Rule, the Divisien will review altemmive pr-eeedufes only to the ex4efft thM ade"me stafAng is available.
Crl
r-eeeiv
o loss than efie „bie , afd ,.Fmmer-ial per- week.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
RRC objection due to lack of statutory authority Eff. April 18, 1996;
Amended Ef.June 1, 1996 1996;
Readopted Ef.November 1, 2019.
15A NCAC 13B .1410 CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
(a) When the permitted compost facilitv ceases operations. the owner or operator shall meet the followine conditions:
(1) all feedstock and unfinished compost materials shall be removed from the site and taken to a permitted solid waste
facility within 180 days, unless otherwise approved by the Division;
finished compost materials left onsite shall comply with G.S. 130A-309.05; and

the owner or operator shall notify the Division in writing upon completion of the requirements of Subpa�ra ra h (1) of
this Paragraph.
( When a permitted compost facility has been closed in accordance with the requirements of the Division, the permit shall be
terminated. Future compost operations at the site shall require a new permit pursuant to this Section.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. November 1, 2019.
59

A-62
APPENDIX F
Regulatory Impact & Fiscal Analysis
.E

A-63
REGULATORY IMPACT AND FISCAL ANALYSIS FOR READOPTION AND
AMENDMENTS TO 15A NCAC 13B .1400 SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
April 27, 2019
General Information
Agency/Commission: Environmental Management Commission
Department: Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste
Management, Solid Waste Section
Contact: Perry Sugg, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
Perry.Sugg((2-)_ncdenr.gov
[phone]
Jessica Montie
Environmental Program Consultant
Solid Waste Section Rule -Making Contact
Jessica. Montie(aD-ncdenr.gov
[phone]
Title of Rule Set: Solid Waste Compost Facilities
Citation: 15A NCAC 13B .1401 - .1410
Authority: G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A 309.11; 130A-309.29; G.S.
150B-21.3A
Impact Summary:
State government: Yes
Local government: Yes
Private Industry: Yes
Substantial Impact: No
Federal Requirement or Impact: No
Attachment A:
Proposed Rule Amendments
Proposed Rule -Making
Schedule:
Date
Action
3/13/2019
GWWMC Meeting: Approval of proposed text to go to EMC.
5/9/2019
EMC Meeting: Approval of rule text and impact analysis for
public comment.
6/17/2019
Rules published in NC Register and Agency website
Comment Period Begins.
7/2/2019
Earliest date for public hearing.
8/16/2019
Comment Period Ends.
9/12/2019
EMC Meeting: Approval of Hearing Officer's Report and
Adoption of Rules.
10/17/2019
RRC meeting: Approval of rule text
11/1/2019
Earliest effective date for rules.
61

A-64
Necessity and Purpose of Rule Change
It is the responsibility of the Division of Waste Management (Division) Solid Waste Section
(Section) to regulate how solid waste is managed within the state under the statutory
authority of the Solid Waste Management Act, Article 9 of Chapter 130A of the General
Statutes. State rules governing solid waste management are found in Title 15A,
Subchapter 13B of the North Carolina Administrative Code. Rules adopted under the
authority of 130A-309.11 which govern compost standards and applications are found in
Subchapter 1313, Rules .1401 - .1409 Solid Waste Compost Facilities. These rules are
proposed for readoption in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.3A and are required to be
readopted by the deadline established by the Rules Review Commission of April 30,
2021. Proposed Rule .1410 is a new rule proposed for adoption.
Proposed amendments to the rules include the addition of exempt categories in Rule
.1402, new procedures and requirements for odor corrective action and training in Rule
.1406, updates to testing requirements in Rule .1407, addition of vermicomposting and
anaerobic digestion requirements in Rule .1409, and the addition of Rule. 1410 for closure
requirements. The proposed amendments also include technical corrections, updates to
information such as Department names, addresses, websites, and references,
clarification of vague or unclear language, removal of redundant or unnecessary
language,
The proposed amendments provide a range of benefits to the compost and wood waste
management industry both in cost savings and in clarification of requirements while
maintaining environmental protections. They eliminate out-of-date requirements,
increase flexibility for low risk sites, and clarify requirements to provide equity and
consistency to the industry. The proposed amendments also address ongoing odor
management issues and the Division expects a reduction in offsite odor nuisances.
Additional training requirements are expected to improve environmental and public health
protections and reduce the occurrence of violations. Specific implementation costs and
expected benefits are described in further detail below.
Fiscal Analysis
Types of Businesses or Facilities Potentially Affected by Rule Changes:
Rule changes would potentially affect compost and wood waste management facilities
permitted or regulated by the current rules and include the types of facilities and
operations listed below:
- 5 Composting Pilot / Demonstration Projects
- 231 Yard Waste Notification Sites/Small Type 1 facilities
- 15 Small Type 2, 3, or 4 Facilities
- 24 Large Type 1 Facilities
- 19 Large Type 2, 3 and 4 Facilities
The majority of these facilities are privately owned. Local government entities operate
three Small Type 3 facilities, 12 Large Type 1 facilities, and one Large Type 3 facility.
62

A-65
Permit Requirements in Rule .1401
Proposed permit requirement amendments in Rule .1401 include an expanded permit
period and revision to permit modifications, as well as providing definitions.
(a) Description and Rationale
A proposed amendment to Rule .1401(c) states that permits will be issued for a 10-year
period. Currently compost permits must be renewed every 5 years. This change was
made in response to requests by the industry during stakeholder meetings held in 2017.
Stakeholders stated a longer permit period provides greater stability and assurances with
respect to their approval to operate, which improves their financial planning and security
with lending institutions. Currently there are 58 active permits with 5-year permit limits
which would be converted to 10-year permits when the next permit is issued. The
transition to a 10-year permit for all permitted facilities is expected to be completed within
five years, due to current individual permit expiration dates.
Proposed amendments to Rule. 1401 (d) define major and minor permit modifications and
the requirements for each. The proposed amendments expand the existing modification
rule requirement for a permit modification application to also include as a major
modification an expansion or relocation of the operations area, since this change could
impact buffers and environmental siting requirements. The addition of a new feedstock
would continue to be considered a modification, but could be considered a major or minor
modification depending on whether the new feedstock causes a change in facility type or
a substantial change in operations. The proposed rule also defines how minor
modifications are generally addressed by the Division in practice, consistent with existing
procedures handling minor modifications. The proposed amendment also provides for the
option to re -issue a 10-year permit for facilities requiring major modification, as long as
the permit modification application meets the requirements for a permit renewal
application. This change was made in response to industry request during stakeholder
meetings held in 2017.
Proposed amendments to Rule .1401(c) and (d) add definitions for `operations area' and
for `material onsite'. These definitions were added due to a need to clearly define how
size and volume are determined for the purposes of small and large facilities, and exempt
facilities throughout the rules. The amendments put into rule what is generally being
enforced in practice as a permitting requirement. Definitions ensure consistent and clear
application of rules with respect to which rules apply to a specific type and size operation
and with enforcement of rules.
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
The proposed amendments to Rule .1401 are expected to provide cost savings for the
private industry primarily due to savings in the reduction in the number of potential permit
renewal applications for each facility over the extended 10-year permit period from two
applications to one application. Currently there are 42 permitted private facilities that
could be impacted by the proposed amendment. The cost to prepare a permit renewal
application varies according to facility type and the degree and complexity of
changes/updates for the facility as reflected in the application. In most cases, the permit
renewal application consists of minor updates to the original permit application made by
63

A-66
the owner or operator. Large Type 3 and 4 permit applications (including renewals) are
required to be certified by a licensed professional engineer in accordance with Rule
.1401(b) and owners of these facilities typically incur consulting fees for permit
applications. The Division's estimate for permit renewal applications prepared and
certified by a professional engineer (PE) is $3,000 to $4,000 per application, using an
estimated billing rate of $100/hour for a professional engineer and an estimated 30 to 40
hours to complete the application. Currently there are 16 permitted Large Type 3 or 4
facilities owned by private industries, each of which could see an average cost benefit of
$3,000 to $4,000 per application, for a statewide benefit of $51,000 to $68,000 over the
10-year period.
Permit renewal applications for Large Type 1, all Type 2, and Small Type 3 facilities do
not require a professional engineer and most renewals for the 26 active permits for private
industry facilities are completed in-house by the owners with minimal changes and at
minimal cost. However, if approximately 10 of these facilities hire outside consultants to
complete the renewal applications, at an estimated cost of $2,000 to $3,000 per
application (roughly 75% of the expected costs for a comparable PE -certified application
renewal), the statewide benefit over a 10-year period could be $20,000 - $30,000.
The existing rules for permit modifications do not provide the option to reset the permit
period even if the modification application contains all the requirements for a permit
renewal application. The proposed amendment would give the facility the option for a
reset of the 10-year permit period eliminating the need for both a permit modification
application and a permit renewal application within the same 10-year period. Based on
permit modification requests received by the Division in the past, it is anticipated that no
more than one facility per year would use this option.
2) NC Citizens and Environment
The proposed amendments to Rule .1401 are not expected to impact the risks to NC
citizens and the environment. Regulatory compliance of facilities will not change and is
enforced by the Division through annual inspections and review of annual facility reports.
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1401 are expected to have a minor positive affect on
expenditures for those local governments operating a permitted solid waste compost
facility. Currently there are 12 permitted Type 1 facilities and 4 permitted Type 2 or 3
facilities owned or operated by local governments in NC. Most local governments use
existing staff for permit applications. With the extension of the permit period to 10 years,
some cost savings in staff time for a reduction in permit renewal applications over the life
of the facility will be incurred by these local governments. Cost savings for local
governments using outside consulting services would be expected to be similar to savings
for private industry. If an estimated 4 local governments with active permits use outside
consulting services for permit renewal applications, these local governments can expect
savings of between $2,000 and $3,000 per application for a statewide benefit of between
$8,000 and $12,000 over a 10-year period.
Other than the local governments with permitted facilities, proposed amendments are not
expected to affect expenditures or revenues of any local government.
64

A-67
4) State Government
The proposed amendments to Rule .1401 are expected to provide savings to the state
government in staff time necessary to process, review, and administer permit renewal
applications. The Division estimates an average 18 hours of staff time (ranging from 16-
24 hours depending on facility type) is required for permit renewal with an average of 12
renewal applications per year. The total permit renewals would be reduced by half by
extending the permit renewal period to 10 years. Using a staff total compensation rate of
$45/hour, the Division estimates an annual cost savings of about $4,860.00 for state
government if the 10-year permit renewal period is adopted.
The proposed amendments are not expected to affect revenues for the state government
as there are no fees collected for permit renewal applications.
General Provisions in Rule .1402 (Small and Large Facilities)
Proposed amendments to Rule .1402(e) include revising how small and large facilities
are determined.
(a) Description and Rationale
Proposed amendments to Rule .1402(e)(6) and (7) revise and clarify how small and large
facilities are defined based on size and/or volume using definitions in Rule .1401 for
operations area and for material onsite, respectively. The size threshold value for small
facilities is less than two acres, which is the same as existing rule. Existing rule language
makes size and volume accountability confusing and ambiguous and poses challenges
for enforcement or compliance determinations. The volume threshold between small and
large facilities is 1,000 cubic yards (cy) for Types 2, 3, and 4 facilities and 6,000 cy for
Type 1 facilities. While the existing threshold value for volume remains unchanged, the
volume measurement criteria was revised to be volume onsite at any one time versus a
volume of material received per quarter. The definitions for operations area and for
material onsite provide a clear basis for how the area and the volume criteria are
measured for defining the facility as either small or large. For area determination, this
definition puts into rule what is generally being required and enforced by the Division in
practice. Enforcement of the current volume criteria relies on self -reporting through the
annual reports submitted by permitted facilities to the Division. The volume per quarter
limitation is a control on production while the volume onsite only limits how much a site
can manage at any time, which is a better measure of regulating a facility's capacity to
safely manage material. The existing rule language for small and large facilities is
intended to ensure small facilities do not overburden their capacity to safely manage their
process streams. The proposed amendments maintain this intent with better defined
boundaries and limits to reduce potential for compliance issues.
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
Proposed amendments to Rule .1402(e) are not expected to add any additional costs to
the private industry. Small facilities could potentially see an increase in overall production
by changing the volume limitation from `no more than 6,000 cy (or 1,000 cy for Types 2,
3, or 4) per quarter' to `no more than 6,000 cy (or 1,000 cy for Types 2, 3, or 4) onsite at
any one time'. This change eliminates the processing/production maximum of 24,000 (or
65

A-68
4,000) cubic yards per year for small facilities, which could result in some increase in
overall production. The benefits of this would be difficult to quantify since an estimation
of how many, if any, facilities will or have the capacity to increase production would
depend on each facility's site -specific operations. However, it is expected that any
potential productivity increase for any such facility would likely be restricted to only a small
increase due to the facility's two -acre size limitation.
2) NC Citizens and Environment
The proposed amendments to Rule .1402(e) are not expected to impact risks to NC
citizens and the environment. Regulatory compliance of facilities will not change and is
enforced by the Division through annual inspections and review of annual facility reports.
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1402(e) are not expected to affect expenditures or
revenues of any local government.
4) State Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1402(e) are not expected to affect expenditures or
revenues of the state government. However, definitions and how area/volume criteria are
determined are expected to reduce compliance issues due to better understanding and
enforcement of the rules.
General Provisions in Rule .1402 (Exemptions)
Proposed amendments to Rule .1402(g)(2) include expanding permit exemptions.
(a) Description and Rationale
The proposed amendment to Rule .1402(g)(2) provides exemptions to permitting
requirements for certain small facilities processing a defined list of feedstocks, volume
limits, and size restrictions. Exempt sites would not be required to submit a permit
application nor would exempt sites require approval to operate (either as permitted site
or a notification site). This would expand the exemptions currently allowed only for
primary/secondary schools per existing Rule. 1409(d) and for summer camps/community
gardens by policy. Operations must meet exemption criteria for waste type, size (less
than one acre), and volume (less than 100 cubic yards onsite). Sites would be exempt
from permitting and notification, but still would be subject to certain operational conditions
consistent with a permitted site. Limiting exemptions based on relatively low -risk
feedstocks, small volumes, and size minimizes risks to public health and the environment.
Providing for exemptions with safeguard conditions in rule is expected to make
composting more accessible for smaller scale, low -volume operations, many of which are
non-commercial in nature, and provides increased opportunities for direct onsite reduction
to an entity's waste stream volume.
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
It is projected that most of the demonstration (pilot project) approvals currently regulated
in existing Rule .1409 would be exempt with the proposed amendment. These pilot

A-69
projects are temporary 1-2 year approvals specifically for the purpose of evaluating
feasibility of a project. The proposed exemption amendment provides for such a feasibility
project without notification and approval by the Division for small demonstration projects.
There are currently five (5) active demonstration projects with a projected 3 demonstration
requests per year going forward. Additionally, a limited number of the smaller permitted
Small Type 2 and 3 facilities could also potentially meet the exemption requirements
proposed.
2) NC Citizens and Environment
Expanding exemptions could potentially add some level of risk to NC Citizens or the
environment by reducing direct oversight of some compost operations. However, the
small size and volume of material, as well as restrictions to allowable waste types of the
exempt operations pose a low risk potential from non-compliance. Regulatory compliance
requirements in the proposed rule for exempt facilities allow the Division to correct and
enforce compliance issues as they become known.
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1402(g) are not expected to affect expenditures or
revenues of any local government. Currently, there are 16 permitted compost facilities
(either small or large) owned by a local government and none currently would meet the
exemption size or volume limits.
4) State Government
The proposed amendments to Rule .1402(g) are expected to provide savings to the state
government in staff time necessary to process, review, and administer permit and
demonstration applications and conduct annual site inspections. However, given the
small size and volumes proposed for exempted sites, less than 3 of the 15 currently
permitted small facilities would likely qualify as exempt. If these do qualify as exempt, the
Division estimates a savings of $1,272.00/year in staff time if 3 currently permitted sites
qualify as exempt (based on 16 hours for permit renewal once every 5 years at $45/hour,
and 8 hours/year/site for site inspections at $35/hour total compensation). The Division
estimates additional savings for current demonstration projects that would likely qualify
as exempt. Based on an average of 3 demonstration projects/year, the Division estimates
an additional savings of $2,460/year in staff time (based on 12 hours/year/site for each
demonstration approval review at $45/hour, and 8 hours/year/site for site inspections at
$35/hour total compensation).
The proposed amendments for exemptions are not expected to affect revenues of the
state government. The size and type of facilities included in the exemptions do not require
any permit application or annual fee under the existing schedule of fees in the general
statutes.
Application Requirements in Rule .1405
Proposed amendments to Rule .1405 include reorganization of the permit application
requirements, including clarifications and updates to some text, and a proposed
requirement for an odor control plan in Rule .1405(10).
67

A-70
(a) Description and Rationale
No new permit requirements are proposed, except for the odor control plan in Rule
.1405(10). The proposed reorganization of Rule .1405 combines the existing permit
application requirements for 3 different permit types into a single permit application
requirement covering all facility types. Separate permit -to -construct (PTC) and permit -to -
operate (PTO) applications for Large Types 2, 3, and 4 are no longer required. The
Division determined there was no benefit in having separate permit applications by facility
type because all applications are required to submit the same type of information with a
few exceptions for Large 2, 3, 4 facilities. These exceptions are clearly addressed in the
proposed amendments. Combining the PTC/PTO for Large 2, 3, 4 facilities into one
permit issuance removes unnecessary administrative delay in issuance of the final PTO.
Proposed amendments to Rule .1405(10) require operators of Large Type 2, Large Type
3, and all Type 4 facilities to prepare an odor control plan to ensure odors are minimized
at the site property boundary. Facility Types 2, 3, and 4 may accept certain feedstocks
(such as septage or grease) with a higher potential for creating objectionable offsite odors
than those from Type 1 facilities. Existing rule requires facilities submitting a permit
application to include in the operations plan a description of how facility odors will be
controlled and minimized. The proposed amendment provides clarity on the specific types
of information required in the application for odor control, including site -specific design
and operating odor control best management practices (BMPs) and odor complaint
protocols. The proposed odor control plan requirements were added to address an issue
that has generated growing public interest around some permitted facilities. In
stakeholder meetings, industry acknowledged the need for clarity and better directives in
regulation on odor control. In response the Division determined a greater emphasis on
upfront, site -specific odor control planning at these facilities will lead to better
management of odors, and a reduction in compliance violations and offsite odor control
issues with citizens.
(b) Costs/Benefits by
1) Private Industry
The proposed amendments to Rule .1405 provide benefits to the private industry by
streamlining the permit application and permit issuance process, particularly for Large
Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities. Some minimal cost savings can be expected in combining the
PTC/PTO applications for new or expanded Large Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities. The total
cost benefit is expected to be minimal since the Division typically receives only about one
such application per year.
The proposed amendment to Rule .1405(10) would add a one-time cost to prepare a site -
specific odor control plan for 18 existing permitted private Large Type 2, 3, or 4 facilities.
Existing facilities would have to meet this requirement at the time of their next scheduled
permit renewal. Plans for Large Type 3 and 4 facilities are required to be certified by a
licensed professional engineer in accordance with Rule .1401(b) and owners of these
facilities typically incur consulting fees for permit applications. Plans prepared by a
professional engineer could range from $2,400 to $3,000 (using an estimated billing rate
of $100/hr for a professional engineer at an estimated 24-30 hours, plus administrative
costs). Currently, there are 18 permitted Large Type 3 or 4 facilities in NC, each of which
could incur a one-time cost of $2,400 to $3,000 during the 2-yr period after rule adoption.
68

A-71
A similar cost for plans for the current two Large Type 2 facilities can be expected as well,
assuming the plan is prepared and sealed by a consulting professional engineer. Private
industry may also experience a benefit from a reduction in odor complaints and
enforcement issues if they are making clear plans for odor control in advance of operation.
2) NC Citizens and Environment
The proposed amendments to Rule .1405 are not expected to impact the risks to NC
citizens and the environment. NC citizens, especially those within close proximity to a
permitted facility, could expect benefits from the requirements focusing on greater
emphasis on odor control measures.
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1405 are not expected to affect expenditures or revenues
of the majority of local governments. Currently, only one Large Type 3 permitted facility
owned by a local government would be subject to the requirement for an odor control plan
and could incur a one-time cost of $2,400 to $3,000 during the 2-year period after rule
adoption for a PE -prepared plan.
4) State Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1405 are not expected to affect expenditures or revenues
of the state government. State government staff could expect benefits from a reduction
in complaint response and processing enforcement documents if there are clear plans for
odor control in place.
Operational Requirements in Rule .1406 (Odor Corrective Action)
(a) Description and Rationale
The proposed amendment to Rule .1406(18) regarding odor corrective action requires
submittal and implementation of an odor corrective action plan to address offsite odor
problems not otherwise resolved through adherence to the approved odor control plan.
The amendment includes specific requirements for the odor corrective action evaluation
and response. The proposed odor corrective action rule is needed to provide a clear
mode of action for enforcement of odor compliance by the Division, as well as provide
clear means for facilities on expected rule requirements to address offsite odor control
issues. The proposed amendment puts into rule general compliance enforcement
practices and policy by the Division for addressing offsite odor control problems.
The proposed odor corrective action amendment was added to address an issue that has
generated growing public interest around some permitted facilities. In stakeholder
meetings, industry acknowledged the need for clarity and better directive in regulation on
odor control and on how odor corrective action issues are addressed. Particularly, the
proposed amendment provides a framework in rule for mitigation of any offsite odor
issues in a timely and effective manner.
69

A-72
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
The proposed amendment for odor corrective action is not expected to have added cost
impacts for permitted facilities since the requirements for odor correction action through
compliance enforcement are consistent with current policy and practice. While the
potential for entering into odor corrective action for a facility exists, particularly for Large
Types 2, 3, and 4 facilities, this circumstance is not expected to occur often. Also, the
proposed odor control plan in proposed Rule .1405 is expected to result in better odor
management and response practices reducing the need for corrective action as required
in this proposed amendment. Even so, the proposed requirements in rule now include
specific and prescriptive courses of action for corrective action should this be necessary.
The need for odor corrective action beyond a facility's effective implementation of their
odor control plan is expected to be an infrequent occurrence — one facility every 5 years
at most.
The costs to implement odor corrective action would be hard to calculate due to the wide
range of possible site -specific conditions, problems, and corrective actions, but would be
expected to be at least $2,700 for development of a corrective action plan by an outside
consultant (based on an average billing rate of $90/hr at 30 hours).
2) NC Citizens and Environment
The proposed amendments to Rule .1406(18) are expected to benefit NC citizens and
the environment by providing a more efficient and clear means in rule for addressing
offsite odor violations and to reduce the occurrence of offsite odor nuisance issues.
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1406(18) are not expected to affect expenditures or
revenues of any local government. Odor control corrective action would only be required
in the event where offsite odors are found to be an ongoing problem. While it would be
difficult to predict when and for which specific permitted facilities, this would occur, the
Large Types 2, 3, and 4 facilities have the greatest potential for offsite odor issues due to
the types of feedstock they could accept. Of these facilities, only one Large Type 3 is
owned by a local government.
4) State Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1406(18) are not expected to affect expenditures of state
government, although some staff time can expect to be saved in any odor compliance
issue due to clear requirements for enforcement. Combined with the odor control plan
required in the proposed amendment to Rule .1405, odor corrective action is expected to
be addressed more efficiently and timely further reducing staff time required for
enforcement.
Operational Requirements in Rule .1406 (Training)
(a) Description and Rationale
The proposed amendment to Rule .1406(19) requires Large Type 1, all Type 2, all Type
3, and all Type 4 facilities to have regular training (every five years) in compost operations
from courses approved by the Division. Trained operators are expected to result in
70

A-73
improved compost operations management and a reduction in frequently cited
compliance problems such as fires, nuisance odors, excess leachate runoff, vectors, and
inadequate temperature/moisture control. Additionally, facilities would be required to
provide to facility staff annual review of operations plans and permit documents. The
proposed amendments provide conditions for meeting the training requirement, as well
as provisions for documenting training. The proposed training requirement amendment is
consistent with training required for other permitted solid waste management facilities per
GS 130A-309.25. A stakeholder survey conducted by the Division demonstrated support
for required training. The proposed amendments give facilities up to two years after rule
adoption and/or permit issuance to meet this requirement.
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
It is estimated that some of the larger commercial compost facilities already meet this
requirement as part of their professional certification requirements. Even so, the proposed
amendment would add recurring costs (every 5-years) to 42 existing permitted facilities
(both private and public) and to a projected estimate of 1-2 new facilities/year going
forward. Minimum training to meet proposed Division requirements for compost facilities
are estimated to cost from $400-$600 for a one-time 2-day training course plus $100-
$150.00 for training updates (short -courses) once every five years thereafter. Each facility
is required to have at least one staff person (operator, supervisor, or manager) with this
required training. Currently available courses (both classroom and online) that meet the
proposed amendment requirements are offered by industry groups such as SWANA, NC
Compost Council, and US Compost Council, and also by a few private firms. It is
anticipated that facility staff's requirement for annual review of operations plans and the
permit would be performed in-house as part of normal work duties at no additional cost
to the facility.
Individual facilities could potential benefit from training requirements which could result in
better operations management and/or reduction of regulatory compliance problems.
2) NC Citizens and Environment
General risks to NC citizens and the environment would expect to be lower by having
compost facilities operated by personnel regularly trained in operations and management
of such facilities. Risks to NC citizens and the environment may be mitigated by better -
trained staff include pathogen reduction, vector control, fires, offensive odors, and
leachate runoff.
Training course providers would be expected to benefit with an increased customer base
requiring their training services. Based on current permitted facilities required to meet the
proposed training, course providers could increase revenues by as much as an estimated
$20,000 to $26,000 over the initial 2 years (based on course fees listed above) after rule
adoption and an estimated $1,000-$1,500 annually (for training update courses) starting
five years after rule adoption.
71

A-74
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1406(19) would increase costs for local governments
with permitted facilities requiring training. Currently, sixteen (16) permitted facilities owned
by different local governments in NC would have to require training should the rule be
adopted. Minimum training to meet proposed Division requirements for compost facilities
are estimated to cost from $400-$600 for a one-time 2-day training course plus $100-
$150 for training updates (short -courses) once every five years thereafter. Each facility is
required to have at least one staff person (operator, supervisor, or manager) with this
required training. Currently available courses (both classroom and online) that meet the
proposed amendment requirements are offered by industry groups such as SWANA, NC
Compost Council, and US Compost Council, and also by a few private firms. It is
anticipated that facility staff's requirement for annual review of operations plans and the
permit would be performed in-house as part of normal work duties at no additional cost
to the facility.
Revenues for local governments are not expected to be affected by the proposed
amendment.
4) State Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1406(19) are not expected to affect expenditures or
revenues of the state government. State government staff may see a benefit from
reduced time spent on complaint response and enforcement due to better -trained facility
staff.
Testing Requirements in Rule .1407
a) Descriation and Rationale
Proposed amendments to Rule .1407 include corrections and technical updates for
testing and classification, as well as removal of unnecessary testing requirements.
Arsenic and selenium testing was added for Type 3 facilities to be consistent with updated
US Compost Council testing recommendations. These 2 metals can be found in Type 3
facility feedstock. Chromium testing was removed for Type 4 facilities since it is no longer
listed a target test metal per the updated 40 CFR 503.13(b)(3) reference list. Removal of
nitrogen testing is a correction to the applicability of the testing requirements involving
sludge per 40 CFR 503. This rule requirement applies only to direct land application of
sludge and not for application of compost.
Other amendments involve a reorganization by moving testing requirements from existing
Rule .1408 to proposed Rule .1407 for better rule organization.
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
Additional costs to the private industry include added costs for arsenic and selenium for
Type 3 facilities. There are currently 26 Type 3 facilities, of which four are owned by local
government. The testing cost is estimated at $10/metal/sample with an expected sample
frequency from 2-4/year, the total added costs for each facility is estimated at $40-
$80/year.
72

A-75
Benefits for the private industry include minor cost savings from reduced testing
requirements for Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities. The testing requirements removed are either
no longer applicable to these facilities or have been updated to be consistent with
reference testing regulations. The proposed amendments remove foreign matter testing
for all Type 3 and 4 facilities and removes chromium testing for Type 4 facilities and total
nitrogen testing for any Type 3 or 4 facility accepting sludge. Currently there are 30 active
permitted Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities. Only two are Type 4.
Twenty-eight current Type 3 and 4 facilities would no longer be required to test for foreign
matter for a potential annual savings of $10-15/year for each facility. Two Large Type 4
facilities would no longer be required to test for chromium for an annual estimated savings
of about $20-$40/year each (based on 2-4 samples/year and testing cost of $10/sample).
2) NC Citizens and Environment
The proposed amendments to Rule .1407 are not expected to significantly impact the
risks to NC citizens and the environment. Adding the testing requirement for arsenic and
selenium at Type 3 facilities adds increased protection from potential exposure for NC
citizens using compost from Type 3 facilities.
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1407 are expected to minimally affect expenditures for
permitted facilities owned by local governments. Currently, there are four such facilities.
Added costs to test for arsenic and selenium for Type 3 facilities would increase annual
testing expenditure at four currently permitted facilities owned by local governments. The
testing cost is estimated at $10/metal/sample with an expected sample frequency of 2-
4/year, the total added costs for each facility is estimated at $40-$80/year. These facilities
would also realize cost saving on removal of foreign matter testing requirement, estimated
at $10/sample with one sample per year tested. The overall annual cost increase for
testing would be minimal for each facility (estimate of $30-$70/year for each facility).
Revenues for local governments are not expected to be affected by the proposed
amendment.
4) State Government
The proposed amendments to Rule .1407 are not expected to impact costs or benefits to
the state government.
Composting Pilot/Demonstration Projects in Rule .1409
Paragraph (b) of Rule .1409 is proposed to be removed.
(a) Description and Rationale
Existing Rule .1409(b) provides individuals a means to request approval of a solid waste
composting pilot or demonstration project to evaluate the project's feasibility without
having to apply for a permit. Information is provided to the Division by the requester and
a letter of approval is issued by the Division with conditions. Currently demonstration
projects are approved for one year with an option to request a second year to evaluate
73

A-76
feasibility. After which, the operator either applies for a full permit or discontinues the
demonstration project. Paragraph (b) of Rule .1409 is proposed by the Division to be
removed since the exemptions proposed in Rule .1402 would provide the same
opportunity for evaluating the feasibility of pilot projects under an established level of
requirements. The exception would be projects that accept either septage or grease
waste streams, which are not approved for exemptions.
The Division typically receives about 2-3 requests per year for demonstration project
approvals, the majority of which do not include septage or grease as feedstock.
Historically, about 2/3 of past demonstration projects approved by the Division did not
continue past the feasibility stage and discontinued the demonstration project.
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
The proposed removal of existing Paragraph (b) from Rule .1409 could potentially result
in cost savings to private industry by not having to submit the request for approval
information or a final feasibility report.
2) NC Citizens and Environment
The proposed amendments to Rule .1409 are not expected to impact the risks to NC
Citizens and the environment.
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1409 are not expected to affect expenditures or revenues
of any local government.
4) State Government
The proposed removal of existing Paragraph (b) from Rule .1409 is expected to provide
savings to the state government in staff time necessary to process, review, administer,
and inspect demonstration project approvals.
Vermicomposting and Anaerobic Digestion Permit Requirements in Rule .1409
Proposed amendments to Rule .1409 add siting, permitting, and operations requirements
for vermicomposting facilities and for anaerobic digestion facilities that receive and handle
organic solid waste.
(a) Description and Rationale
The proposed amendments to Rule .1409(b) and (c) add permitting and operations
requirements specifically for vermicomposting and anaerobic facilities, respectively. Both
vermicomposting and anaerobic digestion facilities require specific rule requirements
since these types of facilities are functionally different in scope and operations than typical
compost facilities addressed in Section .1400. Vermicomposting and anaerobic digestion
are currently permitted as Small or Large Types 2, 3, or 4 compost facilities using the
existing compost rules for those facilities. Separate proposed amendments to Rule .1409
were added for these vermicomposting and anaerobic digestion since there are
fundamental process and monitoring differences in these two methods that are not
adequately addressed by the current rules. There is currently one vermicomposting
74

A-77
permitted facility and one anaerobic digestion permitted facility in NC.
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
Proposed amendments to Rule .1409 are not expected to add any additional costs to the
private industry. Private industry is likely to benefit from clarity of what is required for these
specific types of facilities.
2) NC Citizens and Environment
The proposed amendments are not expected to impact the risks to NC citizens and the
environment.
3) Local Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1409 are not expected to affect expenditures or revenues
of any local government.
4) State Government
Proposed amendments to Rule .1409 are not expected to affect expenditures or revenues
of the state government.
Closure Requirements in Rule .1410
(a) Description and Rationale
Proposed new Rule .1410 clarifies the requirements for proper closure of permitted
facilities and termination of a permit. Adding closure requirement rules provides a
regulatory remedy to address sites that are abandoned leaving potential public health and
environmental problems, such as potential fire hazards, vector problems, nuisance odors,
leachate, and other problems. As a protection for NC citizens and the environment, the
Division currently requires these closure procedures to be met prior to approving the
closure of a facility and/or termination of the permit. The proposed rule puts into rule the
procedures generally being required in practice for permit closure or termination.
(b) Costs/Benefits by Entity
1) Private Industry
Costs to close facilities in accordance of the proposed amendments are difficult to
quantify due to the wide range of site conditions and size. However, current best
management practices for closing facilities are consistent with the proposed closure
amendment. The Division estimates that no more than 1-2 permitted facilities have closed
over a five-year period, most of which are properly closed. Benefits to private industry
include better planning due to clarity on requirements for closure or termination of the
permit.
2) NC Citizens and Environment
NC citizens and the environment are expected to benefit from having assurance of proper
closure required by the proposed rule.
75

A-78
3) Local Government
Proposed Rule .1410 is not expected to affect expenditures or revenues of any local
government.
4) State Government
Proposed Rule .1410 is not expected to affect expenditures or revenues for the state
government. State government staff may expect an enforcement benefit from having
clear requirements in rule for facility closure.
76

A-79
From: Hollis, Carrie
To: Montie. Jessica; Suaa, William P; Everett, Jennifer
Cc: Masich, Mollv; McGhee, Dana; Grozav, Anca
Subject: Approval - Solid waste compost facilities, 15A NCAC 13B .1401 - .1410
Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 4:32:05 PM
Attachments: DEO 2019-04-29.odf
DEO 2019-04-29 attachment.pdf
OSBM has reviewed DWM's proposed amendments to rules 5A NCAC 13B .1401 - .1410 in
accordance with G.S. 15013-21.4 and with E.O. 70 from 10/21/2010 as amended by E.O. 48 from
4/9/2014. The fiscal note has been approved for publication. Please ensure that the state and local
government impacts are included in the Notice of Text and that the NC League of Municipalities and
Association of County Commissioners are notified.
The .pdf file of the rule impact analysis (attached) will be posted on our website at the following URL
(please allow for some time):
https://files.nc.gov/ncosbm/documents/files/DEQ_2019-04-29.pdf
Please post this link on your agency's website to ensure compliance with G.S. 1508-19.1(c)(5).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-Carrie
Carrie Hollis
Economic Analyst
NC Office of State Budget and Management
919 807 4757 office
carrie.hollisQosbm.nc.gov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law (GS 132) and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.
77

A-80
APPENDIX G
Certification of Agency Head

A-81
CERTIFICATION OF THE AGENCY HEAD
REGARDING COMPLETION OF A FISCAL NOTE AND RULE ANALYSIS
IN RE: 15A NCAC 13B .1401 - .1410 Solid Waste Compost Facilities
FINDINGS
The Chair of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission ("the
Commission") is appointed by the Governor to guide and coordinate the activities of the
Commission in fulfilling its duties. G.S. § 143B-284.
The Commission has the power and duty to promulgate rules to be followed in the
protection, preservation, and enhancement of the water and air resources of the State.
G.S. § 143B-.282(a).
The undersigned Chair of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
hereby certifies that the attached rules comply with the rulemaking principles set out in
Executive Order No. 70 as amended by Executive Order 48 (2014). The Chair specifically
certifies the following:
The attached rules are necessary because the rules are
required by federal law, citation:
x required by state law, citation: G.S. 150B-21.3A
x deemed necessary by the agency to serve the public interest
2. These rules were based on sound, reasonably available scientific, technical,
economic, and other relevant information that can be found in the rulemaking
record. The rulemaking record can be found in the minutes of the Commission and
in supporting documents. Those documents can be found on the Division of Waste
Resource's webpage at http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-
resources-commissions/environmental-management-commission, or may be
requested from the Clerk of the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission at [e-mail].
3. The fiscal impacts of the rules have been analyzed and appropriate action taken
as follows:
The Commission determined that no fiscal note was required under G.S. §
150B-21.4; or
x A fiscal note has been prepared and approved by the Office of State Budget
and Management in accordance with G.S. § 150B-21.4. A copy of the fiscal
note can be found in the rulemaking record at the locations described in (2)
above.
4. The rules meet all other requirements of Executive Order No. 70.
79

A-82
Based upon the foregoing Findings, and pursuant to the requirements of the North
Carolina Administrative Procedures Act and Executive Order No. 70, the undersigned
makes the following:
CERTIFICATION
The following proposed rules, 15A NCAC 13B .1401 - .1410, entitled "Solid Waste
Compost Facilities", are in compliance with Executive Order No. 70.
This, the 9th day of May, 2019 at Raleigh, North Carolina.
Chair
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
:1

A-83
APPENDIX H
Fact Sheet

A-84
15A NCAC 13B Section .1400 Compost Rule Readoption Fact Sheet
Regulating Division: N.C. DEQ Division of Waste Management Solid Waste Section
Rule Adoption Agency: Environmental Management Commission (EMC)
Statutory Authority: Solid Waste Management Act, Article 9 of Chapter 130A of the North Carolina General
Statutes and specifically GS 130A-309.11 which governs solid waste compost standards.
Proposed Solid Waste Compost Facility Rules: 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 13B, Rules
.1401 - .1410. Existing Rules .1401 - .1409 are required to be readopted under G.S. 150B-21.3A by April 30,
2021. Submit comments to [e-mail] or Jessica Montie, 1646 MSC, Raleigh NC 27699-1646.
Rule -Making Schedule: Comment Period 6/17/19 — 8/16/19
Before the Environmental Management Commission for Adoption on 9/12/19
Before the Rules Review Commission for Final Approval on 10/17/19
Proposed Effective Date of 11/1/19
Compost Permits from Other Divisions: Facilities with animal manure or wastewater treatment biosolids
constituting more than 50 percent of the nitrogenous feedstock for compost are permitted by the DEQ Division
of Water Resources (DWR) under Rules 15A NCAC 2T .1101 through .1111 which were readopted in September
2018. Link to Rules:
http://reports. oah.state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environmentaI%20quaIity/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20t/subchapter%20t%20rules.pdf
Summary of Rule Changes
Many of the proposed changes to existing rules include technical corrections, updates to information such as
Department names, addresses, websites and references, clarification of vague or unclear language, and removal
of redundant or unnecessary language, but following are additional changes to the existing rules:
Permit Period
• Proposed rule change extends permit period from five years to 10-years in Rule .1401(c).
• Proposed rule change revises existing modification rule language in .1405(d) by clarifying types of
modifications considered as major or minor for permitting purposes. Consistent with existing rule, major
modifications require application whereas minor modifications can be addressed without permit action.
• Proposed rule change adds option for major permit modifications to reset the 10-year permit renewal
period.
Small and Large Facilities
• Proposed rule change revises and clarifies how small and large facilities are defined based on size and/or
volume in .1402(e)(6) & (7).
• Existing threshold values for size (2 acres) and volume (1,000 or 6,000 cubic yards) for small and large
remain unchanged.
• Proposed rule change adds definitions for "operations area" and "material onsite" as basis for how a
Large or a Small facility is measured or determined.
• Volume of material measurement criteria proposed to be changed from a limiting threshold volume per
quarter to a maximum threshold volume onsite at any one time.
Exemptions from Permitting Requirements
• Exemptions from permitting by, and notification of, the Division of Waste Management have been
expanded.
• Any entity or institution (private or public) that meets the exemption criteria can operate under Rule .1402.
This includes composting at primary/secondary schools, summer camps, and community gardens.
• Operations must meet exemption criteria for waste type, size (greater than 1 acre), and volume (greater
than 100 cubic yards).
RN

A-85
• The sites meeting the criteria would be exempt from the permit requirement but would still be subject to
specified operational conditions consistent with a permitted site.
• Sites meeting this rule would otherwise be permitted as small Type 1, 2, or 3 compost facilities.
Permit Applications
• Existing rule language and requirements were reorganized with some rule text removed or reworded for
increased clarity in .1405.
• Proposed rule changes combine the existing three permit application requirements in Rule .1405 into a
single permit application rule covering all facility types.
• Proposed rule changes no longer require separate applications for a Permit to Construct and a Permit to
Operate for Large Types 2, 3 and 4.
• Proposed rule changes add a requirement for an Odor Control Plan in Rule .1405(10).
Odor Control and Odor Corrective Action
• Proposed rule change in Rule .1405(10) builds on current odor management application requirements
for Large Type 2, 3 and 4 facilities by requiring a stand-alone odor control management plan.
• Specific design requirements are addressed in the plan, including detailed descriptions of site -specific
design and operating Best Management Plans.
• Proposed rule changes also require facilities to develop odor complaint protocols.
• Proposed Odor Corrective Action requirements in Rule .1406(18) provide a clear mode of action for
enforcement of odor compliance, including specifics on how to address problems not otherwise resolved
through adherence to the approved odor control plan.
Training Requirements
• Proposed rule change in Rule .1406(19) adds a requirement that Large 1, Large 2, and all Type 3 and 4
facilities have an operator, supervisor or manager with periodic training for compost
operations/management.
• Also requires facilities to provide staff with annual review of operations plan and permit documents.
Testing Requirements
• Proposed rule changes include corrections and technical updates for testing and classification in Rule
.1407.
Arsenic and selenium testing for Type 3 facilities added.
Nitrogen testing for Type 4 facilities removed. (This is a correction to the rule. Nitrogen testing per 40
CFR 503 was previously misapplied to the Compost Rules.)
Chromium testing for Type 4 facilities removed (to be in line with the updated 40 CFR 503.13(b)(3)
reference list).
Demonstration Pilot Project Approvals
Requirements for demonstration or pilot project approvals in Rule .1409(b) are proposed to be removed because
the proposed exemptions in .1402 allow more types of facilities to compost without the requirement for a permit
or project demonstration approval.
New Rule Language for Vermicomposting and Anaerobic Digestion
• Vermicomposting and Anaerobic Digestion operations are currently permitted as Type 2 or 3 compost
facilities based on waste types.
• New language in Rule .1409(b) and (c) provides siting, permitting and operations requirements for
vermicomposting operations.
• Consistent with General Provisions in .1402, proposed rule changes include provisions for exemptions
from permitting based on size and volumes.
New Rule Language for Closure Requirements
Proposed new Rule .1410 clarifies the requirements for proper closure of permitted facilities and termination of
permits, which are currently in practice.
MK

A-86
Summary of Compost and Wood Waste Management Facility Types:
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Under 2 acres
Under 2 acres and
Small
and Under 6,000
Under 1,000 cubic yards
cubic ards
Size
Over 2 acres or
Over 2 acres or
Large
Over 6,000 cubic
Over 1,000 cubic yards
ards
Yard and garden waste
Waste low in
pathogens and
Silviculture waste
physical
contaminants
Untreated and unpainted
wood waste
Waste low in
Vegetative agricultural
pathogens and
waste
physical
contaminants
Pre -consumer meat -free
food processing waste
Manures and other
Relatively low in
agricultural waste
physical
contaminants,
Meat
but may have
high levels of
pathogens
Source -separated post -
consumer food wastes
Mixed municipal solid
waste (proposed for
-
-
-
-
deletion
Wastes contains
Post -collection separated
physical
or processed waste
-
-
-
-
contaminants
(proposed for deletion)
and may contain
pathogens
Industrial solid waste
�l
Wastewater treatment
biosolids
Link to Rule Notice and Regulatory Impact Analysis Documents:
https:Hdeq. nc.gov/documents/15a-ncac-13b-1400-solid-waste-compost-facilities
Suggested links for additional information:
• N.C. DEQ Secretaries' Science Advisory Board: https://deq.nc.gov/about/boards-and-
commissions/secretaries-science-advisory-board
• US Compost Council: https://www.compostingcouncil.org
• Biocycle Magazine: https://www.biocycle.net/
01

A-87
APPENDIX I
Written Public Comments

A-88
From: Evan Folds <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Montie, Jessica <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Compost & PFAS
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]
Hello, I understand this to be the email to submit public comment for the NC compost rules that are under review.
I was elected Supervisor with New Hanover Soil & water Conservation District in the November 2017 election. We are very
familiar with PFAS here and I understand there are no guidelines in the compost rules.
Obviously, we should be testing all natural materials assumed of be clean for contaminants, but, for me, this is another
example of misguided intentions, and looking at the syrface and symptoms.
I have done the biological testing on McGill Compost. They are not making compost, or humus, they are making high -end
mulch, at best. Many of the samples I studied had urea, parasitic nematodes, etc. indivcating very immature organic material
In other words, it is only compost in name. It shouldn't be surprising that this is a contaminated substance.
The solution is to make actual compost that has been decomposed by soil microbes into humus. If we would do the study of
what diverse soil microbes can do to bioremediate PFAS chemicals we might find that they are removed from the final
product. to your knowledge, is this work being done?
The problem is not PFAS in compost. The problem is that we are not making actual compost in the first place. Regardless, we
should be testing for PFAS.
In Gratitude,
Evan Folds - Supervisor
NH Soil & Water Conservation District
910-232-3598
:•

A-89
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 4:17 PM
To: Montie, Jessica <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] PFAS in garden compost
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]
Ms. Jessica,
I read Lisa Sorg's NC Policy Watch blog about contaminants in garden compost.
I would like to see restrictions on the amount of any such contaminant in products such as garden compost, but cannot
attend the July 16 meeting and do not know what DEQ feels would be 'safe' levels of such contaminants. How industrial
sludge qualifies as a compost ingredient is beyond me, but if it is considered acceptable, the allowed levels of
contaminants should be the lowest levels achievable.
If more information and acceptable levels will be forthcoming after the July 16 meeting, I will be happy to comment before
he August 16 deadline.
Thank you,
Jackie Hough

A-90
(9 Q Composting '
Council° Compost: Nature's Way to Grow!
August 8", 2019 RECEIVED
ECEIVE
Patrick Gersty,
St Louis Composting
Pad Preside
� � U r y
1
Jessica Montie -Solid Waste Section 2019
Uonis Loder.Rossiter
NC DEQ Division of Waste Management
Synegro
1646 Mail Service Center SOLID WASTE SECTION
Vice President
Brian floury
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
WeCare/Denali
Treasurer
Joe DiNorsda
Jessica,
Laurel Valey Soils
Spry
The US Composting Council (USCC) has reviewed the proposed rule changes cited
Bob Yost
A-1 Organics
as the Department of Environmental Quality TilteISA NCAC 13B .1410 for Solid
Board of Directors
Waste Compost Facilities. Below is our response with comments and
Eileen Banyra
Community Compost Company
recommendations to these proposed rule changes.
Jeff Bradley
Vermeer
Jim Cowhey
JPM Development, LLC
15A NCAC 13B .1405 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID
Jeff Dennis
Howard
WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES Section 8 (h) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
County MD
Tim Goodman
NatureWorks
Operational Requirements
Russell Faldik
New Earth Compost
(8) The USCC recommends that NCDEQ add Large Type 1 Facilities to this
John Janes
Caterpillar
requirement.
Pierce Lewis
Dirt Hugger
(h) Large Type 1 Facilities should inspect all in coming feedstocks as they are
Sarah P a�
unloaded to screen for possible physical contaminates.
Robert Michitsch, Ph.D.
(ii) (iii) (iv) With respect to these requirements, Large Type 1 Facilities should
University of Wisconsin
Stevens Point
also comply.
Bameshanz
Nursery
(ii) Final product sampling and testing ensures that the public will receive a safe
Executive Director
and salable product that is beneficial to soil health and plant.
Frank Financiosi
(iii) Procedures for record keeping ensures that the facility has met VAR and
PFRP. This is important to public health and safety as above.
(iv) It is also important that Large Type 1 Facilities have the proper federal, state
and local permits to operate.
US Composting Council • 3801 Lake Boone Trail • Suite 190, Raleigh, NC 27607
phone: [phone] • [e-mail]• www.compostingcouncii.org

A-91
U�(9 Compostins
�J Couneil°
Page 2
15A NCAC 13B .1406 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE
COMPOST FACILITIES Sections (5) (a) (b) (c) (13) (19) (a) (i) (ii)
Practices and Operational Requirements
(5) (a) Large sites are not defined. This should read Large Type 1,2,3 & 4 Facilities.
(b) The USCC recommends that a trained and certified operator be on site at all times, while
the facility is open and operating.
(c) The USCC recommends that the local fire department reviews their fire protection plan
and visits the site on an annual basis.
(13) With regards to pathogen reduction, the USCC recommends adding Type 2 facilities to
this requirement. Feedstocks that are permitted to be accepted at these facilities can carry
pathogens.
Compost Training Requirements
(19) (a) (i) The USCC recommends defining the minimum curriculum for training for all
types of facilities. Large Type 1 facilities made not need topics covered in Large Type 2, 3
& 4 based on the feedstocks that they are processing.
(ii) We recommend deleting the word manager and adding in the word operations
(ii) The word "certification needs to be defined. Certification is different from training.
Training on the subject matter is a requirement of certification. The USCC views that
Certification of Operators meet the following criteria:
o Minimum of a High School diploma or GED.
0 30 class hours in the following domains.
■ Business Acumen
■ Composting Purpose & Vision
■ Composting Science
• Equipment & Services Maintenance
■ Feedstock Management
■ Health and Safety
■ Process Control & Quality Assurance
US Composting Council • 3801 Lake Boone Trail • Suite 190, Raleigh, NC 27607
phone: [phone] • [e-mail]• www.compostingcouncii.org

A-92
11SComposting Page 3
Y a7 Council•
■ Regulatory Compliance
■ Site Management
o Passing a written test
o Maintaining 30 credit hours for recertification over a period of 3 years.
15A NCAC 13B .1407 CLASSIFICATION, TESTING, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SOLID
WASTE COMPOST PRODUCTS (a) (b) (2) (3) (5) (B) (e)
(a) The words "minimal pathogenic organisms" are not defined as which type of pathogen
and population in colony forming units per 100 mL, CFU/100 mL.
(b) Large Type 1 Facilities can produce a compost product that may contain both pathogens
and heavy metals. The USCC recommends adding this requirement for Large Type 1
facilities.
(2) The USCC recommends that the EPA 503 metals and limits be listed on a table.
(3) The USCC recommends that these pathogens and the 40CFR 503.32 9a) (3) limits be
listed in table form is this document.
(B) Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC). This
document is now priced at three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00).
(c) USCC recommends that Type 1 facilities be added to this requirement and meet the final
product testing.
15A NCAC 13B .1409 ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES, VERMICOMPOSTING, AND
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION REQUIREMENTS (3) (A) (B)
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Vermicomposting should be listed in separate sections. They are
vastly two different methods of processing solid waste. AD facilities require additional safety
requirements and propose possible risks of explosion and exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas.
US Composting Council • 3801 Lake Boone Trail • Suite 190, Raleigh, NC 27607
phone: [phone] • [e-mail]• www.compostingcouncil.org
r'1

A-93
(9 QComposting
�a7 C0unCdi•
Page 4
(3) (A) (B) Training and testing requirements for AD Facilities would be different than composting
facilities. Digestate is a by-product of anaerobic digestion and should be defined. Digestate is not
compost and the test methods to evaluate for digestate are different than that of compost. The same
goes for training requirements for at AD facilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations. I'm available to discuss
these in more detail.
Sincerely,
Frank Franciosi Executive Director
US Composting Council • 3801 Lake Boone Trail • Suite 190, Raleigh, NC 27607
phone: [phone] • [e-mail]• www.compostingcouncil.org
M

A-94
Mmail Shannon Arata <[e-mail]>
Re: ****PUBLIC COMMENTS - DRAFT RULES FOR COMPOST FACILITIES****
C LANGE <[e-mail]> Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:48 PM
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Dear ECM Members,
I apologize. I must have hit send before I was finished and did not sign my email. My public comments
regarding the testing of compost are as follows:
I am writing to urge you all to include testing for toxic compounds, including emerging contaminants,
at our compost facilities in North Carolina. Frankly, I was incredulous that this is not already being
done, given that this compost is used for farms, gardens, parks, and playgrounds. After being tested,
some of this compost was shown to contain 1,4 dioxane, a likely carcinogen, as designated by the EPA.
Now that the presence of a likely carcinogen has been detected, I urge you to take action and ensure
the draft rules governing the testing at compost facilities include testing for toxic compounds, like 1,4
dioxane and other emerging contaminants of concern. It is your duty to keep the public, animals, and
the environment safe and free from toxic chemicals, especially in our water and what we are feeding
our families. As tax paying citizens, it is imperative that the public be able to trust the judgement of the
officials appointed or elected to keep our state safe and habitable. As one professor familiar with this
situation said, "Material containing emerging contaminants of concern should not be used in compost."
Indeed.
Sincerely,
Claudia Lange, RPh, BA
Greensboro, NC
336-253-4049
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:32 PM C LANGE <[e-mail]> wrote:
Dear ECM Members,
I am writing to urge you all to include testing for toxic compounds at our compost facilities in North Carolina. Frankly, I
was incredulous that this is not already being done, given that this compost is used for farms, gardens, parks, and
playgrounds. After being tested, some of this compost was shown to contain 1,4 dioxane, a likely carcinogen, as
designated by the EPA.
Now that the presence of a likely carcinogen has been detected, I urge you to take action and ensure the draft rules
governing the testing at compost facilities include testing for toxic compounds. It is your duty to keep the public,
animals, and the environment safe and free from toxic chemicals, especially in our water and what we are feeding our
families. As a tax paying citizen, it is imperative that the public be able to trust the judgement of the officials appointed
or elected to keep our state safe and habitable.
92

A-95
August 15, 2019
Via U.S. mail and e-mail
Jessica Montie
NC DEQ Division of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
[e-mail]
RE: Comments on Proposed Amendments to 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B
.1400—Regulations for Solid Waste Compost Facilities
Dear Ms. Montie:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments on the proposed
amendments to North Carolina's rules for Solid Waste Compost Facilities under 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 13B .1400. These comments are submitted on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch,
Haw River Assembly, Sound Rivers, North Carolina Coastal Federation, MountainTrue,
Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Yadkin Riverkeeper, Crystal Coast Waterkeeper, White Oak -
New Riverkeeper Alliance, Winyah Rivers Alliance, Coastal Carolina Riverwatch, and River
Guardian Foundation.
North Carolina law prohibits compost facilities from accepting or processing hazardous
waste, which is defined as solid waste that may pose a substantial hazard to human health.
However, the testing requirements in the current and proposed rules for solid waste compost
facilities are inadequate —they will not ensure that hazardous waste is not accepted or processed
by compost facilities. This deficiency has already endangered North Carolinians by allowing
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to enter our compost, where it can get into
our drinking water and food. North Carolina has already suffered from one public health crisis
caused by the pollution from Chemours' Fayetteville Works Facility. The North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality must act now to prevent further toxic contamination of our
food and water. In order to do so, the Department must amend the rules to require that all
materials be tested for hazardous waste, including PFAS, before and after the composting
process.
I. North Carolina Law Prohibits Compost Facilities From Accepting or Processing
Hazardous Waste, or Waste That Poses A Substantial Hazard to Human Health.
North Carolina law prohibits compost facilities from accepting or processing solid waste
that threatens human health. Solid waste compost facilities may not accept or process hazardous
waste. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 1313.1403; see also 15A N.C. Admin. Code 1313.0101 (defining
"compost facility" to include facilities that degrade "non -hazardous solid waste"); 15A N.C.
W,

A-96
Admin. Code 13B .0101 (defining "compost" to include decomposed organic matter that is free
of "toxins or materials harmful at the point of end use."). "Hazardous waste" includes "solid
waste, or a combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration or physical,
chemical or infectious characteristics may:
• Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; or
• Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed."
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290; see 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .0101 (stating that the
definitions in N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290 are applicable to the regulations on solid waste,
including composting). Therefore, if waste is hazardous, or threatens human health, it may not
be sent to or processed at any compost facilities in North Carolina.
II. The Current and Proposed Testing Requirements Are Inadequate and Will Not
Reveal if Compost Facilities are Accepting or Processing Hazardous Waste.
15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1407 requires compost facilities to test their finished or
processed compost once every six months, or every 20,000 tons of compost —whichever comes
first, and only requires facilities to test for metals and pathogens. This rule is flawed for two
reasons.
First, it allows compost facilities to accept waste without knowing if the waste is
hazardous pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290. There is no requirement to test
materials for hazardous waste before a compost facility accepts those materials. Under the
current and proposed rules, therefore, a compost facility or the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality ("DEQ") would not know if a facility was accepting hazardous waste in
violation of 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403.
Second, the rules do not require testing of enough pollutants to ensure that hazardous
waste is not being accepted or processed by compost facilities. The current and proposed rules
require testing of only a handful of metals and pathogens, excluding thousands of harmful
pollutants that are known to occur in land -applied solid waste, and that would meet the definition
of hazardous waste under N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290.1 As a result, the testing
requirements fail to ensure that a facility is not accepting or processing hazardous waste in
violation of 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403.
As demonstrated below, these severe deficiencies in the rules' testing requirements have
already endangered communities by allowing hazardous waste to enter our compost, and to
threaten our food and drinking water.
III. PFAS, a Hazardous Waste Under North Carolina Law, Has Already Been
Found in State -Regulated Compost, Threatening Our Food and Water.
1 Bradley O. Clarke, et al., Review of `emerging' organic contaminants in biosolids and assessment of
international research priorities for the agricultural use of biosolids, 37 ENVTL INTL 226, 226-247
(2011).

A-97
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") are a toxic class of chemicals that meet the
definition of hazardous waste under N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290 and state law prohibits
compost facilities from accepting or processing these chemicals. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B
.1403. However, because of the inadequate testing requirements in the rules governing compost,
PFAS has already been found in state -regulated compost, jeopardizing the safety of our food and
drinking water.
PFAS have already caused a public health crisis in North Carolina. On June 7, 2017, the
people living in Wilmington, North Carolina discovered that their drinking water supply had
been poisoned with dangerous PFAS-contaminated wastewater for four decades.2 DEQ must
amend the rules to require testing for hazardous waste, including PFAS—not only to comply
with the law, but also to protect the health and safety of our communities.
a. North Carolina law prohibits compost containing PFAS.
PFAS are a dangerous, pervasive class of chemicals. These chemicals easily meet the
definition of "hazardous waste" under North Carolina law because they pose a substantial hazard
to human health when they are improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise
managed. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-290. Accordingly, compost facilities may not accept or
process PFAS. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403.
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in manufacturing since the
1940s.3 They are used in producing the coatings in non-stick cookware, stain -resistant carpeting
and upholstery, grease -resistant pizza boxes, and waterproof outdoor gear.4 They are found in
numerous other consumer and industrial products, as well as in firefighting foam used at airports
and military installations.5
It is well established that PFAS are a threat to the health and safety of the public. Two of
the commonly studied PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctyl sulfonate
("PFOS"), have been found to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney and
testicular cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, lower
birth weight and size, obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels
2 Vaughn Hagerty, Toxin Taints CFPUA Drinking Water, STAR NEWS, June 7, 2017,
https: //www. stamewsonline. com/news/20170607/toxin-taints-cfpua-drinking-water/ 1.
3 EPA, Basic Information on PFAS, https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas.
4 See id.; U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), An Overview of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Interim Guidance for
Clinicians Responding to Patient Exposure Concerns, Interim Guidance (June 7, 2017) ("ATSDR PFAS
Guidance"), https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfc/docs/pfas_clinician_fact_sheet_508.pdf.
5 EPA, supra note 3.
r'.

A-98
and delayed puberty.6 Epidemiological studies show that many of these same health outcomes
result from exposure to other PFAS,' including but not limited to:
• Ammonium salt of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid, or GenX ("HFPO-DA") (CAS
# 13252-13-6)8
• Perfluorobutyric acid ("PFBA") (CAS # 375-22-4)9
• Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS") (CAS # 375-73-5)10
• Perfluorohexanoic acid ("PFHxA") (CAS # 307-24-4)
• Perfluoroheptanoic acid ("PFHpA") (CAS # 375-85-9)
• Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA") (CAS # 375-95-1)
• Perfluorodecanoic acid ("PFDA") (CAS # 335-16-2)
• Perfluoroundecanoic acid ("PFUA") (CAS # 2058-94-8)11
• Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid ("PFBuS") (CAS # 375-73-5)12
• Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS") (CAS # 355-46-4)
• Perfluorododecanoic acid ("PFDoA") (CAS # 307-55-1)
• Perfluorooctane sulfonamide ("PFOSA") (CAS # 754-91-6)
• 2-(N-Methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamide) acetic acid (Me-PFOSA-AcOH) (CAS #
2355-31-9)
• 2-(N-Ethyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamide) acetic acid (Et-PFOSA-AcOH) (CAS # 2991-
50-6)13
EPA established a lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion ("ppt") for the
combined concentrations of two types of PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water.14 Since
then, in June 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released an updated
Draft Toxicological Profile for PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS. The report suggested that many
of the chemicals are much more harmful than previously thought. For instance, the minimum
risk levels, or the amount of a chemical a person can eat, drink, or breathe each day without a
° Arlene Blum et al., The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 ENVTL.
HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 5, A 107 (May 2015) ("The Madrid Statement"); EPA, Fact Sheet on PFOA &
PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories, 2, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/
documents/drinkingwaterhealthadvisories_pfoa_pfos_updated_5.31.16.pdf
7 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment, at 5-6, 25-26 (June 2018)
("Draft 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls"),
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf.
8 See generally EPA, Draft Human Health Toxicity Values for GenX (Nov. 2018),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/Production/files/2018-1 1/documents/genx_public_
comment_draft_toxicity_assessment_nov20l 8-508.pdf.
9 ATSDR, supra note 7, at 1.
10 See generally Minn. Dep't of Health, Toxicological Summary for: Perfluorobutane sulfonate (Dec.
2017), https://www.health.state.nm.us/communities/environment/risk/docs/guidance/gw/
pfbssummary.pdf.
11 ATSDR, supra note 7, at 1.
12 See generally EPA, Draft Human Health Toxicity Values for PFBS (Nov. 2018),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11 /documents/pfbs_public_
comment_draft_ toxicity_assessment_nov20l 8-508.pdf
13 ATSDR, supra note 7, at 1.
14 EPA, Fact Sheet on PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories, at 2.
16

A-99
detectable risk to health, was determined to be only 11 ppt for PFOA, and 7 ppt for PFOS. 15
States like New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont have acknowledged the
dangers of these compounds and have either proposed or finalized drinking water standards for
various PFAS at 10 ppt, 11 ppt, 12 ppt, 13 ppt, 14 ppt, 15 ppt, 18 ppt, and 20 ppt.16
Moreover, PFAS have been found to be dangerous when they are improperly managed.
PFAS have been spilled, dumped, and released into the environment for decades. PFAS
manufacturing and processing facilities, facilities using PFAS in the production of other
products, and airports and military installations are some of the main contributors of PFAS
releases into the air, soil, and water.17 As a result, PFAS have been found in air and dust, surface
water and groundwater, and soil and sediment. 18 Hundreds of PFAS-contaminated sites have
been identified around the country.19
Because PFAS are extremely resistant to breaking down in the environment and can
travel long distances20—once PFAS are in the environment, they end up in our drinking water.
Through the Environmental Protection Agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3
("UCMR3") data —which measured only six compounds out of the entire class of thousands of
PFAS21—PFAS were detected in public water supplies serving over 16.5 million residents in 33
15 Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), CFPUA Statement on Recently Released DHHS Report
(June 21, 2018), https://www.cfpua.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=893&ARC=2004; see also ATSDR, supra
note 7.
16 New York to set limits for industrial chemicals in water, AP, July 8, 2019,
https://www.apnews.com/63bffd42efaf49dO8dl14ea444349If0; Annie Ropeik, N.H. Approves
Unprecedented Limits for PFAS Chemicals in Drinking Water, NHPR, July 18, 2019,
https://www.nhpr.org/post/nh-approves-unprecedented-limits-pfas-chemicals-drinking-water; Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources, Agency Of Natural Resources Initiates Rulemaking Process To Adopt
Maximum Contaminant Level For PFAS Compounds,
https://anr.vermont. gov/content/agency-natural-resources-initiates-rulemaking-process-adopt-maximum-
contaminant-level-pfas; James M. O'Neill, NJ proposes strict new drinking water standards for cancer -
linked chemicals, NORTH JERSEY RECORD, Apr. 1, 2019,
https://www.northj ersey.com/story/news/environment/2019/04/01/nj-sets-stringent-drinking-water-
standard-cancer-linked-chemicals-pfoa-pfos-pfas/3334281002/.
17 See PFAS Environmental Occurrence, https:Hclu-in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/Per-
_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_(PFASs)/cat/Occurrence/.
18 ATSDR, supra note 7, at 2, 533-34.
19 Envtl Working Group (EWG), PFAS Map Update: New Data Show Scope of Known Contamination
Still Growing (Jul. 11, 2019), https://www.ewg.org/release/pfas-map-update-new-data-show-712-
contamination-sites-49-states;
20 ATSDR, supra note 7, at 2, 534; see also EPA, Technical Fact Sheet - Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
(PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), 3 (Nov. 2017),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/ffrrofactsheet contaminants
_pfos_pfoa_11-20-17 508_0.pdf (last visited June 10, 2019) and Blum et al., supra note 4, at A 107.
21 During UCMR3, the following PFAS were monitored: PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHpA, PFNA, and
PFHxS. See EPA, The Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3): Data Summary (Jan.
2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/ucmr3-data-summary january-
2017.pdf.
r717

A-100
states.22 Since the monitoring under UCMR3 ended in 2015, many states have discovered
contamination of additional drinking water supplies 23—including southeastern North Carolina
where DuPont and Chemours contaminated the drinking water supplies for over 250,000 North
Carolinians for four decades.24
Recently, PFAS has even been discovered in our food. The Food and Drug
Administration has found high levels of PFAS in grocery store meat and seafood, chocolate cake,
and in leafy green vegetables sold at a farmers market in southeastern North Carolina.25
PFAS clearly "pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health" when they
are improperly managed, and are hazardous waste under North Carolina law. N.C. Gen. Stat.
Ann. § 130A-290. Because PFAS are a hazardous waste, state law prohibits PFAS from being
accepted or processed by compost facilities. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B .1403.
b. PFAS have been found in our compost, and threaten drinking water supplies
and food.
Toxic PFAS have already been found in state -regulated compost, risking the safety of our
food and drinking water. Scientific studies and investigation into PFAS-contaminated sites
nationwide have shown that the land application of solid waste containing PFAS can
contaminate drinking water supplies and food.
i. PFAS are in land -applied solid waste, including compost.
PFAS have been detected in regulated compost here in North Carolina. Last spring,
samples of the compost produced at the McGill Environmental Systems facility in Sampson
County contained 20 types of PFAS with cumulative concentrations of 136.8 ppt.26
This is not surprising because compost facilities in the state receive waste from a well -
documented source of PFAS contamination —solid waste from wastewater treatment plants.27
22 Xindi C. Hu et al., Detection of Poly- and Perflouoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in U.S. Drinking Water
Linked to Industrial Sites, Military Fire Training Areas, and Wastewater Treatment Plants, 3 ENVTL. SCI.
& TECH. LETTERS 344, 345-46 (2016) ("Hu 2016 Study"); see also EPA, supra note 21.
23 EWG, supra note 19.
24 Vaughn Hagerty, Toxin Taints CFPUA Drinking Water, STAR NEWS, June 7, 2017,
https: //www. stamewsonline. com/news/20170607/toxin-taints-cfpua-drinking-water/ 1.
25 Ellen Knickmeyer et al., FDA Food Sampling Finds PFAS Contamination in Meat, Cake, GREENWIRE,
June 3, 2019, https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/06/03/stories/1060468727.
26 Lisa Sorg, PFAS in garden compost: Comment now on proposed rules on how much, if any,
contaminants this material should contain, N.C. POLICY WATCH, Aug. 8, 20199
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2019/07/08/pfas-have-been-found-in-garden-compost-now-is-the-time-
comment-on-proposed-rules-on-how-much-if-any-contaminants-this-material-should-contain/; Lisa Sorg,
DEQ finds 20 types of PFAS in compost headed for gardens, farms and playgrounds, N.C. POLICY
WATCH, May 28, 2019, http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2019/05/28/deq-finds-20-types-of-pfas-in-
compost-headed-for-gardens-farms-and-playgrounds/.
27 Jennifer G. Sepulvado et al., Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land
Application of Municipal Biosolids, 45 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 8106 (2011); U. Eriksson et al.,
Contribution of precursor compounds to the release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) from
r':

A-101
One study conducted PFAS testing of solid waste collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency from wastewater treatment plants all over the country.28 The study tested samples
collected in the EPA's 2001 National Sewage Sludge Survey, in which the EPA collected 94
samples from over 30 statessamples selected to represent over 16,000 wastewater treatment
plants nationwide.29 Although the study only tested for 13 out of thousands of existing PFAS, it
found that PFAS "were consistently detected in all composite biosolids samples," and that there
was a "nationwide occurrence of PFAS[] in U.S. biosolids'30— the treated solid waste coming
from wastewater treatment plants.
In North Carolina, compost facilities receive large amounts of solid waste from treatment
plants. From July 2017 to June 2018, for example, a compost facility owned by Eastern
Compost LLC received and composted nearly 15,000 tons of solid waste from wastewater
treatment plants; 31 a facility owned by McGill Environmental Systems received over 62,000 tons
of solid waste from treatment plants;32 and a facility owned by Orbit Energy Anerobic Digester
Charlotte received over 12,000 tons of solid waste from treatment plants.ss
Given many compost facilities in North Carolina accept substantial amounts of solid
waste from wastewater treatment plants —known sources of PFAS contamination —it is likely
that compost across the state contains PFAS.
ii. Land application of PFAS-contaminated solid waste can contaminate
drinking water and food.
The land application of PFAS-polluted waste can cause toxic PFAS to reach both our
drinking water supplies and our food. Studies have shown that PFAS in land -applied solid waste
can runoff into surface waters and leach into groundwater.34 PFAS in land -applied solid waste
are also absorbed by plants'35 and can transfer to animals that graze on contaminated crops.36
waste water treatment plants (WWTPs), 611 ENVTL. SCI. 80 (China) (2017); J.W. Washington et al.,
Concentrations, Distribution, and Persistence of Perfluoroalkylates in Sludge -Applied Soils near
Decatur, Alabama, 44 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 8390 (2010).
28 Ar un K. Venkatesan & Rolf U. Halden, National inventory ofperfluoroalkyl substances in archived
U.S. Biosolids from the 2001 EPA National Sewage Sludge Survey, J. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 413
(2013), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3776589/pdf/nihms-464002.pdf
29 Id.
30 Id. at 5, 6.
31 Eastern Compost, LLC, Compost Facility Annual Report FYI 7-18 (Jul. 31, 2018),
https:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/O/edoc/l 25 8409/3303-COMPOST-2010—FAR-FYI 7-
18.pdf?searchid=69c 1860a-ad38-4331-8237-e6e64a5384ed.
32 McGill Merry Oaks Compost Facility, Compost Facility Annual Report FY17-18 (Jul. 18, 2018),
https:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/O/edoc/1258399/1906-COMPOST-_FAR-FY 17-
18.pdf?searchid=69c 1860a-ad3 8-4331-8237-e6e64a5384ed.
33 Orbit Energy Charlotte, Compost Facility Annual Report FYI 7-18 (Jul. 25, 2018),
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/0/edoc/ 1258429/6033-AD-COMPOST_FAR-FY17-
18.pdf?searchid=69c 1860a-ad3 8-4331-8237-e6e64a5384ed.
34 A.B. Lindstrom et al., Application of WWTP Biosolids and Resulting Perfluorinated Compound
Contamination of Surface and Well Water in Decatur, Alabama, USA., 45 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 8015
(2011); B.O. Clark & S.R. Smith, Review of `Emerging' Organic Contaminants in Biosolids and
r"

A-102
Farmland in Decatur, Alabama, for example, received solid waste from a local
wastewater treatment plant that accepted wastewater from PFAS-related industries. High PFAS
concentrations were found in plants, surface water, and well water in and around the farmland.37
In nearby surface waters, PFAS concentrations reached 11,000 ppt; in well water, concentrations
reached 6,400 ppt—hundreds of times higher than any state or national health levels or drinking
water standards for PFAS.38 In Arundel, Maine, the spreading of treated solid waste on a 100-
acre dairy farm likely caused contamination of the milk coming from that dairy farm.39 Milk
from the farm had levels of one PFAS chemical as high as 1,420 ppt.40
Here in North Carolina, the Cane Creek reservoir, which is a water supply source for the
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority, has contained PFAS concentrations at 106 ppt, and
the suspected source of that contamination is runoff from nearby fields where solid waste is
applied as fertilizer.41 This has caused a "persistent problem" for the public drinking water
supply.42
PFAS has already been found in compost in North Carolina, and it is likely in other
compost. Thus, compost in North Carolina is a possible route of PFAS contamination into our
drinking water and our food —through polluted rivers and streams, and polluted crops and
animals that eat those crops.
Assessment of International Research Priorities for the Agricultural Use of Biosolids, 37 ENVIRON. INT.
226 (2011); Sepulvado et al., supra note 27.
" Ekhiiie Bizkarguenaga et al., Uptake of perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctane sulfonate and
perfluorooctane sulfonamide by carrot and lettuce from compost amended soil, 571 So. TOTAL ENV'T
444 (2016); Hoon Yoo et al., Quantitative Determination of Perfluorochemicals and Fluorotelomer
Alcohols in Plants from Biosolid-Amended Fields using LC/MS/MS and GC/MS, 45 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH.
7985 (2011); T. Stahl et al., Carryover of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
(PFOS) from Soil to Plants, 57 ARCHIVES ENVTL. CONTAMINATION & TOXICOLOGY 289 (2008) and
Mareike Lechner & Holger Knapp, Carryover ofperfluorooctanoic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) from soil to plant and distribution to the different plant compartments studied in
cultures of carrots (Daucus carota ssp. sativus), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), and cucumbers (Cucumis
sativus), 59 J AGRIC. & FOOD CHEMISTRY 11011 (2011).
36 Janine Kowalczyk et al., Transfer of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
(PFOS) From Contaminated Feed Into Milk and Meat of Sheep: Pilot Study, 63 ARCHIVES ENVTL.
CONTAMINATION & TOXICOLOGY 288 (2012).
37 Holly Lee et al., Fate of Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphate Diesters and Their Metabolites in Biosolids-
Applied Soil: Biodegradation and Plant Uptake in Greenhouse and Field Experiments, 48 ENVTL. SCI. &
TECH. 340 (2014).
3s Id.
39 Richard Valdmanis, The curious case of tainted milkfrom a Maine dairy farm, REUTERS, Mar. 19,
2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-dairy-chemicals/the-curious-case-of-tainted-milk-from-a-
maine-dairy-farm-idUSKCN 1 RO 1 AJ.
40 Id.
41 Lisa Sorg, State budget, new scientific tests shine a light on NC's growing drinking water pollution
problem, N.C. POLICY WATCH, May 31, 2019, http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2019/05/31/state-budget-
new-scientific-tests-shine-a-light-on-ncs-growing-drinking-water-pollution-problem/.
42 Id.

A-103
IV. DEQ Must Amend the Rules To Require That Materials Be Tested For
Hazardous Waste, Including PFAS, Before And After the Composting Process.
The proposed amendments to North Carolina's rules on Solid Waste Compost Facilities
will not protect the health and safety of our communities. The current and proposed rules only
require compost facilities to test their finished compost for metals and pathogens. They fail to
require testing of all hazardous wastes, such as PFAS, and they fail to require testing of materials
before they are accepted by a compost facility.
To comply with North Carolina General Statute § 130A-290 and 15A N.C. Admin. Code
13B .1403 and to protect the health and safety of North Carolinians, DEQ must amend 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 13B .1407 to require testing of all potentially hazardous waste, including PFAS,
prior to the compost facility's acceptance of waste, and in the finished compost. Other states are
recognizing the dangers of spreading toxic waste onto farms —including PFAS-polluted waste
and are taking actions to stop that practice.43 DEQ must do the same, and amend the compost
rules to prevent further toxic contamination of our state's drinking water, food, rivers, and
streams.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Jean Zhuang
Kelly Moser
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-967-1450
43 Paula Gardner, The hunt for PFAS turns to Michigan farms using human waste as fertilizer, MLIVE,
June 19, 2019, https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/06/the-hunt-for-pfas-turns-to-michigan-farms-using-
human-waste-as-fertilizer.html; Wisconsin battles waste plants that spread hazardous PFAS, AP, June 29,
2019, https://www.wbay.com/content/newsiWisconsin-battles-waste-plants-that-spread-hazardous-PFAS-
512003361.html; Kevin Miller, Maine treatment plants scramble to meet state's new sludge -testing edict,
PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, Apr. 2, 2019, https://www.pressherald.com/2019/04/02/treatment-plants-
scramble-to-meet-new-dep-sludge-testing-edict/?rel=related.
101

A-104
15A NCAC 13B .1400. Solid Waste Compost Facilities Proposed Rule Readoption.
Public Comments
August 16, 2019
As a long-time Chatham County resident and organic gardener, I am very concerned about
what is in my compost. People expect commercial compost products to be safe to use. The
potential harm that PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane, two of the many emerging contaminates of
concern, pose to human health and the environment is a real concern since these chemical
contaminants are resistant to biodegradation and bioaccumulate in wildlife and humans. To
protect soil health PFAS, 1,4-Dioxane and other chemicals of concern should not be in
compost that is sold and distributed for widespread garden or landscape use in our
communities.
Recent studies have shown that high levels of HAS and 1,4-Dioxane, two of the many
emerging contaminates of concern, can be found in drinking water, rainwater, soil, food
sources, plants, animals, and humans throughout the Cape Fear River Basin. Allowing
unregulated chemical contaminates in the feedstock for the composting industry creates yet
another exposure pathway for toxic substances to be released into the environment.
Leachate from compost applications can filter down into groundwater or surface water,
entering our water supply. Multiple sources of exposure to chemical contaminants
adversely affect environmental and human health. Emerging contaminants of concern are
emerging threats to the health and quality of life for all living organisms.
In NC Policy Watch special report: Unregulated, untested and unknown, Lisa Sorg reported
that McGill Environmental Services, Type 4 compost facility in Sampson Co., accepted sludge
from DAK Americas that contained 1,4-Dioxane. Without regulatory requirements for
testing emerging contaminates in the feedstock and finished product, how will DEQ know
whether or not this has also happened at the McGill Environmental Services located in
Moncure, Chatham County? The McGill compost facility is situated northeast of the
Brickhaven coal ash landfill and the STAR recycling coal ash project under construction at
the Cape Fear Power Station location. Waste trucked from local heavy industries or farms
for feedstock could contain chemical contaminates. (Paper products may also have a PFAS
coating.)
EPA has yet to set regulatory standards for emerging contaminates in compost. In the
meantime, DEQ should propose a tracking system requiring an analysis for PFAS and 1,4-
Dioxane in the raw feedstock and the finished compost product. Industries should be
required to disclose if these chemical compounds are present in the material shipped to
compost facilities since neither PFAS, or 1,4-Dioxane can be removed during the composting
process. This testing would help DEQ determine if compost is another potential source of
chemical contaminates in our environment.
Extending the permit application time from five to ten years is a cost reduction for industry
but does not benefit the public. The opportunity to make public comments as needed for
DEQ to review and address relevant and urgent health and environmental concerns is
timely and would be limited if the proposed extended application time is approved.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments.
Jeannie Ambrose
102

/-151111
Norm uarallna
Conservation
Network
August 16, 2019
Jessica Montie
NC DEQ Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Jessica. Montie Pncdenr.gov
Delivered via email
T. 919.857.4 " Re: Re -adoption and amendments to i5A
F: 919.833.8819 NCAC 13B .1400 Solid Waste Compost
Facilities
19 East Martin St.
Suite 30D Dear Ms. Montie,
Raleigh, NC 27601
www..n€conservationnetwork.org Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments
on the proposed re -adoption and amendments to 15A
NCAC 13B .1400 - Regulations for Solid Waste
Compost Facilities. The North Carolina Conservation
Network is a statewide environmental advocacy
organization that advocates for a just and sustainable
future for North Carolina. This comment letter seeks
to encourage the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) to make this ruleset as protective
of human health and the environment as possible. We
believe the current proposal falls short of this goal.
We acknowledge the importance of the compost
industry in North Carolina and the many benefits
composting brings to the environment. Composting
helps divert wasted food, organics, and climate -
driving methane emissions from landfills.'
Considering the great benefit to the environment that
composting presents and the imminent need for
solutions to the world's climate crisis2, we expect
more than a causal expansion of the composting
industry in the coming years. As compost moves to
center stage, this ruleset will come under increased
' See "Composting At Home." EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 16 Oct. 2018,
https://www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home.
z See Davenport, Coral. "Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040." The New York
Times, The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-
2040.html.
103

/-11511Il
pressure, and we propose the following improvements in hopes that the industry will be
prepared to bear that pressure.
Exclusions for feedstock
Section .1403 excludes hazardous waste, asbestos, and household hazardous waste, but
nothing else. Many contaminants fall outside this exclusion but, nonetheless, can render
compost either `unsafe' or `unhygienic'. North Carolina General Statute 13oA-309.11
directs the EMC to adopt rules that include `[r]equirements necessary to produce
hygienically safe compost products...' To meet that, the readopted section should
include a general - catch-all — exclusion of any contaminants that are not removed or
rendered harmless through the operations required by this article (15A NCAC 13B .1400
et seq.) from the feedstock.
Limits for specific contaminants
The other place to catch harmful contaminants in compost is at the end of the process.
Rule .14o6 and .1407 set standards for testing compost. Unfortunately, the proposed
ruleset only covers a limited number of contaminants and omits some known
contaminants that will threaten public health and the environment, particularly as this
industry grows. These contaminants include microplastics and persistent toxics,
including perfluorinated substances (PFAS)3. We appreciate that it is hard, based on
current science, to set `safe' numeric thresholds for some of these — which is why the
broad exclusion language in .1403 is so important as a backstop. Where science will
support putting in limits for .14o6 and .1407 for specific contaminants, the EMC should.
The EMC and Division of Waste Management (DWM) should consider adding
something comparable to the Whole Effluent Toxicity test4 used in the context of water
discharges as another backstop to catch actual toxicity. By its nature, the Whole Effluent
Toxicity test does not easily identify sub -lethal or chronic exposure effects, but it does
prevent acute toxicity from slipping through the cracks when the source is not any of the
specific contaminants listed in .14o6 or .1407.
Anti -microbial bacteria
The provisions in .1407(b)(3) addressing bacteria make no mention of antibiotic
resistance. Depending on where waste streams are coming from — for example, litter
from poultry farms — it is entirely likely that a high percentage of bacteria in the
resulting compost is resistant to antimicrobials, even if the counts are low. Given that
there is no restriction on where the compost may be used, this represents a health
hazard in conflict with the statutory mandate to assure `safe and hygienic' compost. The
s See "Basic Information on PFAS." EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Dec. 2018,
https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas.
4 See "Whole Effluent Toxicity Methods." EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 26 June 2019,
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/whole-effl uent-toxicity-methods.
104

r_d11rA
proposed ruleset should place limits on feedstock to prevent the presence of
antimicrobial -resistant bacteria in the compost.
Sampling
The unpermitted discharge of liquids from a compost operation into water is properly
prohibited in .14O4(a)(9)(B) — and is already illegal under the federal Clean Water Act.
However, .14O4(a)(9)(C), addressing nonpoint runoff, is inadequate. There is no
provision in the rules that requires sampling of runoff or conditions in adjacent or
downstream waters — without which this provision is a dead letter. It is fine to keep it,
but the ruleset also needs provisions that ensure runoff is contained onsite. At the very
least, there needs to be provisions in this ruleset that ensure pollutants in runoff will not
reach nearby waters.
Environmental Justice
As a matter of good public policy and — in the case of this ruleset, compliance with state
statutes — it is essential that the ruleset provide for the analysis of environmental justice
and specifically, the analysis of potential disparate and cumulative impacts to
environmental justice communities5.
First, we recommend that rule .1405 - setting out application procedures for composting
permits, explicitly include language calling for an analysis of potential disparate and
cumulative impacts of a new facility6. The language should include any conditions that
may be attached to the permit to avoid or mitigate those impacts. We also recommend
that DWM staff develop a clear and concise procedure for this analysis and work with
applicants where needed. DEQ's new Community Mapping Tool — a non -regulatory,
analytical tool — may serve as a data source to simplify the needed analysis.
NC General Statute 13oA-294(a)(9) charges DWM, in processing an application for a
solid waste facility, to deny the application if "[t]he cumulative impact of the proposed
facility, when considered in relation to other similar impacts of facilities located or
proposed in the community, would have a disproportionate adverse impact on a
minority or low-income community...". That statutory requirement applies to the agency
whether or not the EMC rules governing any particular solid waste permit process
provide for an equity analysis. However, if the rules do not provide of an equity analysis
the agency's record of decision will not include the basic information necessary for the
agency to make a non -arbitrary decision on the application of 13oA-294(a)(9)•
The Impact Analysis for the proposed ruleset does not address disparate and cumulative
impacts. We suspect that, of the many types of operations that DWM permits as a part
of North Carolina's overarching solid waste plan, compost operations may be among the
S See "Learn About Environmental Justice." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.epa.gov/environmental'ustice/learn-about-environmental-justice
e See "Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents". EPA, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Federal Activities, May 1999. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
08/documents/cumulative.pdf
105

A-108
least likely to impose disparate impacts or to contribute to oppressive cumulative
impacts in already overburdened communities. However, there is no way to know that
without an explicit analysis, and the record for this ruleset to date contains no such
analysis.
We recognize that applicants for compost permits will fall on a spectrum from
minimally funded to significantly overcapitalized; the Impact Analysis suggests that only
some applicants currently hire consultants to prepare their applications. Analysis of
disparate and cumulative impacts — even with a method set out by the agency — may be
a burden on smaller applicants. For that reason, we recommend that staff develop a
clear and concise procedure for the analysis, and that staff work with applicants where
needed to conduct that analysis. DEQ's new Community Mapping tools — a non -
regulatory, analytical tool — may serve as a data source to simplify the needed analysis.
Beyond the specific statutory authority that applies to solid waste permits (not just
compost facilities), state constitutional requirements underpin the policy decision to
build consideration of equity into the permit process. According to North Carolina
Constitution Article 1, section 19, the Law of the Land provision, calls both for `equal
protection of the laws for all North Carolinians, and no state `discrimination by race or
color'. Without analyzing equity (rulemaking and permitting), the EMC and the agency
cannot guarantee an actual outcome on the ground that is free of discrimination based
on race or color, or that assures all North Carolinians equal protection.
Extension of permit durations should be delayed
One significant relaxation from current rules in the proposed ruleset is the extension of
a permit's duration from five years to ten years. This proposed change is coupled with a
provision stating that when a facility modifies its permit mid-term, that modification
can also extend for a full ten years - well past the original renewal date. We question
whether this is wise, at a time when the industry is poised to expand many -fold and
appears be playing catchup with emerging contaminants in its feedstock and production
streams. We suggest that it would be better to defer that extension until the industry has
reached the level top of the s-curve of rapid expansion, and controls have been well
tested to meet the statutory standard of `safe and hygienic' compost.
If the rule does extend the time -period, the rule and hearing officer's report should be
explicit that changes in excluded feedstock, and in standards of what contaminants may
be in finished compost, will trigger immediate modifications to active permits. It is
extremely important that we do not defer compliance with new standards to protect
public health and the environment for up to ten years when facilities' permits are up for
renewal.
Conclusion
As mentioned above, the proposed ruleset falls short of what is needed to truly address
the emerging issues we are seeing in North Carolina. It is vital that we keep organic
streams clean of contaminants as the composting industry continues to grow and as we
learn more about toxics like PFAS. While we do need diversion and composting to
106

A-109
increase, we must do so responsibly. Proceeding responsibly means our state rules
ensure feedstock excludes materials that will render compost either `unsafe' or
`unhygienic', adds exclusions for contaminants like PFAS, requires necessary sampling,
and considers cumulative and disparate impacts analysis in decision making.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Please feel free to reach out to
Jamie Cole(jamiePncconservationnetwork.org) or Grady McCallie
(grady(&ncconservationnetwork.org) if you have questions or would like more
information.
Sincerely,
Jamie Cole
Policy Manager, EJ, Materials, & Air
NC Conservation Network
Grady McCallie
Policy Director
NC Conservation Network
107

F-1151Gl
APPENDIX J
Revised Proposed Rule Text

A-111
1 15A NCAC 13B .1401 is readopted with changes as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
2
3 SECTION .1400 - SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
4
5 15A NCAC 13B .1401 REQUIREMENT FOR PERMIT
6 (a)
7 with other wastes shall not constmet, operate, expand or modify a f4eility until a cuffentlyvalid permit for a so
8 waste eompost f eility is issuedby the Division. No person shall construct, operate, expand, or modify a facility
9 produces compost from solid waste or solid waste co -composted with other wastes unless it has been [issues] issued
10 a currently valid permit for a solid waste compost facility by the Division, except as provided for in Rule .1402(f) and
11 (a) of this Section. This provision also applies to f4eilifies that aeeept, store,
12 waste ^r f-^fn esidues 47am ^ „lt ...' pr-eduets and pr-eeessiag. General , provisions, siting,
13 design, application, operational, distribution, and reporting, and closure requirements shall be in accordance
14 with Rules .1402, 4403, .1404,.1405, .1^0�1407, .1402 through .1408 .1410 of this Section.
15 (b) Plans for a Large Type 3 or Type 4 Solid Waste Compost Facility Permit, or alit plans for any facility located
16 over a closed -out disposal area area, shall be submitted with the permit application in accordance with Rule .02n�1(a)(3)
17 .0202(a)(3) of this Subchapter. A mininium ffour sots of plans shell be submitted .:,ithi, each ^ plicat ^
18 (c) Compost permits shall be issued for a period of not more than 10 years. An application for renewal of a permit
19 shall be submitted no less than four months prior to expiration of the existing permit.
20 (d) Permit modifications.
21 (1) A major modification shall be required for any of the following: a change in either property or
22 facility perator or ownership, a change in facility type as defined in Rule .1402 of this Section, an
23 expansion or relocation of the approved operations area, or a substantial change to the operations or
24 design plan.A major modification requires an application submitted to the Division in accordance
25 with Rule .1405 of this Section, including revised design and operational plans and drawings.
26 (2) A minor modification shall include a change in the design or operational plan that does not require
27 a substantial change to the design and operations plan and drawings. A minor modification that is
28 approved by the Division shall be approved by written notification. The approval shall be added as
29 an addendum to the approved plan.
30 0 An approved major modification shall result in the issuance of a new permit with an expiration no
31 more than 10 years from the time of issuance in accordance with Paragraph (c) of this Rule if the
32 modification application meets the criteria for a permit renewal.
33 (e) For purposes of this Section, 'operations area" means the total area used for mixing, grinding, processing,
34 composting curing, and wood waste and feedstock unloading and storage_ Operations area shall not include buffer
35 areas.
36 (f) For nurnoses of the Section. "material onsite" means wood wastes. feedstocks. mixtures. and active and curing
37 compost, but shall not include finished product.
109

A-112
2 History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
3 Eff. December 1, 1991;
4 Amended Eff. May 1, 1996.. 1996;
5 Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
110

A-113
1 15A NCAC 13B .1402 is readopted with changes as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
2
3 15A NCAC 13B .1402 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
4 (a) Applicability. The provisions of this Rule shall apply to the following facilities:
5 (11,) facilities that produce compost or mulch from yard waste or from residues from agricultural products
6 and processing;
7 vermicomposting facilities;
8 anaerobic digestion facilities; and
9 (4) compost facilities that compost solid waste or co -compost solid waste with sludges that are not
10 classified as a solid waste waste; functioning as a nutrient source.
11 (b Facilities that co -compost with sewage sludge shall comply with all applicable Federal federal regulations
12 regarding sludge management at in 40 CFR 501 and 503. 40 CFR 503, subpart B is Merely incorporated by r- e,
13 reference including subsequent amendments ^r additions.and editions. Copies of the Code of Federal Regulations
14 may be obtained from the U.S. Government Publishing Office website at www.gpo.gov Solid Waste Seel en at 40
15 Oberlin Read, Suite 150 Raleigh, NC 27685 at no cost.
16 (c)(b) The provisions of this Section de shall not apply to compost facilities that compost only wastewater treatment
17 sludge with municipal solid waste functioning only as a bulking agent.
18 (e) Solid Waste Compost Facilities that have been pennitted prior- to the effective date of this Rule shall mee
19 of this Seetien within ene yeaf of the effeefive date of this Puale, er, within two yeafs if mer-e than one
20 .
21 (d) Solid waste compost produced outside the State of North Carolina and imported into the state shall comply with
22 the requirements specified in Rule .1407 of this Section.
23 (e) Compost that is disposed shall not courA toward waste reduction go
24 (e)(f) Solid waste compost facilities shall be classified based on the types and amounts of materials to be composted.
25 (1) Type 1 facilities may receive yard and garden waste, silvicultural waste, and untreated and unpainted
26 wood waste waste. ^ ,rl.inatio thereof
27 (2) Type 2 facilities may receive pre -consumer meat -free food processing waste, vegetative agricultural
28 waste, source separated paper paper, of and other source separated specialty wastes, wastes
29 that are low in pathogens and physical contaminants. Waste acceptable for a Type 1 facility may be
30 composted at a Type 2 facility.
31 (3) Type 3 facilities may receive manures and other agricultural waste, meat, post consumer
32 separated post -consumer source -separated food wastes wastes, and other source separated speei li*',
33 source -separated specialty wastes or any combination theree that are relatively low in physical
34 ^^� contaminants but may have high levels of pathogens. Waste acceptable for a Type 1
35 or 2 facility may be composted at a Type 3 facility.
36 (4) Type 4 facilities may receive mixed ffmaieipal solid • rite post eelleetion se ..,.^a ^r- pr-eeessea
37 waste, industrial solid waste, non solid non -solid waste sludges functioning as a nutrient source or
111

A-114
1 other similar compostable organic wastes wastes, or any combination thereof. Waste acceptable for
2 a Type 1, -2 2 or 3 facility may be composted a((t��a Type 4 facility.
3 (5) The listed. .,sty t.Tes in Q„1.,�..,,-.,..,-aph /F12l [(24]efr a [Pafagr-ap ]shall be eensidefed ♦e be
4
5
6 , fth s Rule e like , ♦e 1,.,.,e high ,...,thee... a -ad 1..,., ph�,sieal ,. ,,,tafnin lien
7 In determining whether a specific waste stream shall be is acceptable for composting in ^ Type 2 ^r
8 Type 3 facility, composting, the Division shall consider the method of handling the waste prior to
9 delivery to the facility as well as the physical characteristics of the waste. Testing for pathogens and
10 physical contaminants may shall be required where if a determination cannot be made based upon
11 prior knowledge of the waste. Test methods and constituents tested shall comply with
12 Rule .1407(b)(2), (b)(3), [a (5)](b)(5), and (b)(6) of this Section. ^ppeadiees ^ and n to Table
13 3-
14 (6) Small facilities.
15 Small Type 1 facilities shall have an operations area less than two acres in size and shall
16 be limited to no more than 6,000 cubic yards material onsite at any given time, including
17 finished product.
18 Small Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities shall have an operations area less than two acres in size
19 and shall be limited to no more than 1,000 cubic yards material onsite at any given time.
20 Small f4eilities are these 4iat r-eeeive less 4ia-n 1000 eubie yards of mmer-ial fer- eampestiffg
21 , and aeeupy less than two aer-es of land, exeept that a Small Type 1 f4eility s
22 process or store less than 6,000 ,.,,1.:c yards of material p arte,
23 (7) Large facilities.
24
(A) Large Type 1 facilities shall have an operations area of two or more acres in size or have
25
more than 6,000 cubic yards material onsite at any given time.
26
(B) Large Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities shall have an operations area of two or more acres in size
27
or have more than 1,000 cubic yards material onsite at any given time.
28
Large f4eilifies are these thm r-eeeive 1000 eubie yafds of more of mmer-ial for- eefflpestiffg
29
,
30
process or store more than 6,000 ,.,,1.:c yards .,Fmaterial p after.
31
(�I -^ A ---itis
of required for the following operation The following operations shall be exempt from the
32
requirements of
this Section:
33
(1)
Backyard Composting backyard composting;
34
(2)
Fafming farming operations and silvicultural operations where if the compost is produced from
35
materials grown on the owner's land and re -used on the owner's land or in his associated farming
36
operations and not offered to the p4lie. public and;
37
(33,)
persons receiving no more than 30 cubic yards of leaves from an offsite source on an annual basis.
112

A-115
1
(21
l�l
Small Type
1 Facilities meeting the following g c ,� diti.,,,.�.
2
{
.
C'7 ,
5
C"TI 4 ,
(44) Type an ., «..Fwastes fe 0 ed;
6
(W-) r,., pesting pfeeess to be , , oa. ,.,,a
7
i (.,°11 intended distribution of the finished pr.,du �
8
(B)Agreement
to operate in aceer-danee with operational requirements as set forth in Rule aad
9
the setbacks nr-ca.1404(a)(1) ( this Section..
10
, ,
11
regialmionsor-orders.
12
Faeility is not leemed over- elesed out disposal site.
13
(}
14
0 ided.
15
O The following
operations shall be exempt from the permitting requirements in Rule .1405 of this Section:
16
Small Type
1 Facilities meeting the following conditions:
17
notification of the Division prior to operation and on an annual basis as to:
18
o the facility location;
19
ii the name(s) and contact information of the owner and operator;
20
JjW type and amount of wastes received;
21
iv the composting process to be used;
22
Cv) the intended distribution of the finished product; and
23
vi for new facilities only, a letter from the unit of government having zoning
24
jurisdiction over the site that states that the proposed use is allowed within the
25
existingzoning, oning if any, and that any necessary zoning approval or permit has been
26
obtained;
27
(B)
the facility operates in accordance with the operational requirements as set forth in Rule
28
.14060) through (11) and (16) of this Section and the setbacks in Rule .1404(a)(1) through
29
(a)(10) ofthis Section;
30
LQ
the facility perates in accordance with all other state or local laws, ordinances, rules,
31
regulations or orders;
32
the facility shall not be located over a closed -out disposal site; and
33
the safety measures shall be taken to prevent fires and access to fire equipment or fire-
34
fighting services shall be provided.
35
(2)
Compost facilities meeting the following conditions:
113

A-116
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
the site may receive for composting pre- and post -consumer food waste, manure, vegetative
agricultural waste, yard and garden waste, land -clearing debris, untreated and unpainted
wood waste, and source separated paper;
material onsite, not including finished compost, shall not exceed 100 cubic yards at any
time;
the operations area shall be less than 1.0 acres total;
the site operates in accordance with operational requirements as set forth in Rule .1406 of
this Section and the setbacks in Rule .1404(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this Section, except
that the buffer between property line and operations area shall be at least 50 feet and the
buffer between the operations area and residences or dwellings not owned and occupied by
the operator shall be at least 200 feet;
the site operates in such a manner that dust and odors do not constitute a public nuisance;
Q for facilities producing compost that is distributed to the public or used in public areas,
compost produced from the facility shall meet the pathogen testing and record keeping
requirements per Rule .1407(b) and Rule .1408(a) of this Section; and
the site operates in accordance with all applicable State or local laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations, or orders.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
Amended Eff. May 1, 1996.. 1996;
Readopted Ef.November 1, 2019.
114

A-117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15A NCAC 13B .1403 is readopted as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
15A NCAC 13B .1403 GENERAL PROHIBITIONS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST FACILITIES
(a) Neither hazardous waste nor asbestos ,.,..,.., asbestos -containing waste shall be accepted at a facility or
processed into compost.
(b) Household hazardous waste shall not be accepted by a facility, except in an area designated by facility site plans
for storage, and shall not be processed into compost.
(c) Any Compost made from solid waste .e that cannot be used pursuant to the requirements of this Rule
shall be reprocessed or disposed of pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 1313.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
Amended Eff. May 1, 1996.. 1996;
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
115

A-118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
15A NCAC 13B .1404 is readopted with changes as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
15A NCAC 13B .1404 SITING/DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST
FACILITIES
(a) A site shall meet the following requirements of this Rule at the time of initial permitting and shall continue to
meet these requirements throughout the life of the permit only on the site property owned or controlled by the applicant
or by the landowner(s) at the time of permitting: permitting.
(1) A site located in a floodplain shall not restrict the flow of the 100-year flood-; flood, reduce the
temporary storage capacity of the floodplain; floodplain, or result in washout of solid waste waste,
so as to pose a hazard to human life, wildlife, land land, or water resources resources.
(2) A 100-foot miaim-u buffer is shall be maintained r-equir-e between all property lines and compost
areas for Type 3 and 4 facilities, 50-foot for Type 1 or 2 f e. es; facilities.
(3) A 500-foot minimum buffer is shall be maintained require between compost areas and residences
or dwellings not owned and occupied by the permittee, except that Type 1 and Small Type 2 and 3
facilities shall have maintain a 200-foot minimum buffer-, buffer.
(4) A 100-foot minim buffer is shall be maintained require between all wells and compost areas,
except monitoring wells; wells.
(5) A 50-foot minimu buffer is shall be maintained required between perennials streams
and rivers and compost a areas.
(6) A compost facility shall be located in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0200, Classification and
Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters in North Carolina.
(7) All portions of any a compost facility located over a closed -out disposal area shall be designed with
a pad adequate to protect the disposal area cap from being disturbed, as defined in Part `a'�(4 )
a( )(10)(C) of this Rule, and there shall be no runoff from the pad onto the cap or side slopes of the
closed out area; area.
(8) A 25-foot minimum distance is shall be maintained require between compost areas and swales or
berms; bei:f s to allow f r adequate . o of fie fighting equipm
o„..
(9) A site shall meet the following surface water requirements:
(A) A a site shall not cause a discharge of materials or fill materials into waters or wetlands of
the state that is in violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(B) A a site shall not cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the state that is in violation
of the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
unde pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act; and
(C) A a site shall not cause non -point source pollution of waters of the state that violates
assigned water quality st standards.
(10) A site shall meet the following groundwater and operations area pad requirements:
116

A-119
1 (A) A a site shall not contravene groundwater standards as established under pursuant to 15A
2 NCAC 02L;
3 (B) the operations area of Type 1, 2, and 3 facilities shall have one of the following:
4 (i) a soil pad with a soil texture finer than loamy sand. For a Type 1 or 2 facility, the
5 depth to the seasonal high water table shall be maintained at least 12 inches. For
6 a Type 3 facility, the depth to the seasonal high water table shall be maintained at
7 least 24 inches; or
8 ii a pad in accordance with Part (C) of this Subparagraph;
9 Portions of a site used for waste receipt and storage, active composting, and
10 shall have a soil textffe finer than loamy sand and the depth to the seasonal hig
11 wa4er- table shall be maintained a4 least 12 inehes for- a Type 1 or- 2 f6eility and 24
12
13 (C) the operations area of a Type 4 facility shall have a pad with a linear coefficient of
14 permeability no greater than 1 x 10.7 cm/sec. The pad shall consist of one of the following:
15 0 a non -soil pad, such as concrete and asphalt, designed and constructed to meet the
16 weight requirements of the compost operation and to prevent infiltration of liquids
17 to groundwater; or
18 ii a soil pad of at least 18 inches constructed in accordance with Rule f.' 62
19 .1624(b)(8) and Rule .1621 of this Subchapter. A 12-inch soil layer shall be
20 maintained over the pad to protect it from damage and desiccation: and
21 A pad shall be provided €er- peFtions of a T-"e 4 f4eilit used for- waste
22 storage, active composting, and eufing;
23 (D) A pad is not required for storage of finished produet that is dried so as to pass the Pain
24 Filter Liquids Test (EPA Method 9095), and for which the storage area is prepared in siieh
25 finished
26 product shall be stored where the depth to the seasonal high water table is wed at
27 least 12 inches below ground inehes; an
28 (-E) The linear- eoeffieiefft of peFmeability ef pads r-e"ir-ed in aeeor-danee with this R?ale sha44
29
30
31 , facility
32 design, and regional topography) alter -native minimum buffers or requirements may be increased if deemed necessary
33 by the Division in order- to protect public health and the environment or to prevent the oreation of a
34 ( For Subparagraphs (a,)(2) through (a)(4) and Part (a)(10)(B) of this Rule, alternative minimum buffers or
35 requirements may be [iner-eased ,] modified by the Division, based on the waste type, facility design, and regional
36 toDOQraDhv. if necessary to Drotect Dublic health and the environment or to Drevent the creation of a nuisance.
37 (c) A site shall meet the following design requirements:
117

A-120
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(1) A a site shall not allow uncontrolled public access;
(2) A a site shall meet the requirements of the Sedimentation D^'r INtion Control Law (15A NCAC 04h
(3) A a site shall meet the requirements of the Air Pollution Control Requirements (15A NCAC 24))
02D to minimize fugitive emissions and odors; and
(4) A a site shall be designed to minimize odors at the property boundary.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03,- 130A-309. H; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
Amended Eff May 1, 4996. 1996:
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
118

A-121
1 15A NCAC 13B .1405 is readopted with changes as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
2
3 15A NCAC 13B .1405 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST
4 FACILITIES
5 (a)- One paper copy and one electronic copy of a solid waste compost facility permit application shall be submitted to
6 the Division. The following information is shall be required for an application for a permit to construct and operate a
7 proposed Type' or ^ Small Type 2 or 3 solid waste ^ ost f dirt.; Large Type 1, Small or Large Type 2 or 3 or
8 all Type 4 solid waste compost facilities unless the permitting requirements are exempted by ]Paragraph (g) of Rule
9 .1402 Rule .1402(g) or (h) of this Section:
10 W the name and contact information of the facility owner and operator;
11 (2) documentation of property ownership, including:
12 (a) the property owners;
13 (bb,) a current property deed; and
14 (c) a notarized acknowledgement letter from the landowner of use of the property as a solid
15 waste facility if landowner is not the facility owner or operator.
16 OM An an aerial photograph or scaled drawing, where one inch at a scale of one inch to less than or
17 equal to 400 feet, accurately showing the area within one-fourth mile of the proposed site's
18 boundaries with the following specifically identified:
19 La)(A) Extire the entire property owned or leased by the person proposing the facility;
20 1]2�(B) Laeatia the location of all homes, wells, industrial buildings, public or private amities;
21 reads; watercourses; dty=ems; utilities, roads, watercourses, and other applicable
22 information regarding the general topography within 500 feet of the proposed facility; and
23 fcc)(C) Land the land use zoning of the proposed site.
24 (4�(-2) A [for all new site a letter from the unit of government having zoning jurisdiction over the site
25 which that states that the proposed use is allowed within the existing zoning, if any, and that any
26 necessary zoning approval ^r ,.o. mit has been obtained. approvals or permits have been obtained;
27 �QM An an explanation of how the site complies with siting and design standards ie required by Rule
28 .1404 of this Seetien. Section;
29 �0(4) A a detailed report indicating the following:
30 fa)(A) Waste type(s), the waste types, the source and estimated quantity of the solid waste to be
31 composted, composted including the source and expected quantity of any bulking agent or
32 amendment (if applicable), any expected recycle recycling of bulking agent or compost,
33 and any seasonal variations in the solid waste type or quantity; and
34 02)(9) liar for facilities that utilize use natural soils as a pad, a soil evaluation of the site conducted
35 by a licensed soil scientist down to a depth of four €eel feet or to bedrock or evidence of a
36 seasonal high water table, to evabaa4e evaluating all ehefnieal an physical soil properties
37 and depth of the seasonal high water table. table;
119

A-122
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
C7)(-5) Site a site plan at a scale where of one inch is to less than or equal to 100 feet tomoo h that
delineates the following:
La)(A) wag the existing and proposed contours, at intervals appropriate to the topography;
1]2�(B) heea&) the location and elevations of dikes, trenches, and other water control devices and
structures for the diversion and controlled removal of surface water;
Lc)(G) Pesigaa4e the designated setbacks and property lines;
Cd)" Proposed the proposed utilities and structures; and
Ce)(€) Areas the areas for unloading, processing, active composting, curing, and storing of
material;
(�f the access roads and details on traffic patterns;
(g) the wetlands, streams, and 100-year floodplains; and
the proposed surface and groundwater monitoring locations, if required.
M(6) n deser-iptien of the , era4io e f the f eilit.....hieh must : el„de a4 a minimumi an operations plan
that includes the following:
fa)W Name, address and phone ,,u e the name and contact information for the person
responsible for the operation of the facility;
(1)(P) List a list of personnel required and the responsibilities of each position;
Cc)(C) Operation plan for the facility; a schedule for operations, including days and hours that the
facility will be open, preparations before opening and procedures to be followed after
closing for the day;
Ldj" Speeial special precautions or procedures for operating during wind, heavy rain, snow,
freezing or other adverse conditions;
Le)R A a description of actions to be taken to minimize noise, vectors, and air borne particulates,
particulates; and odors; and
W(F) A a description of the ultimate use for the finished compost, the method for removal from
the site, and a contingency plan for disposal or alternative usage use of residues or finished
compost that cannot be used in the expected manner due to poor quality or change in market
conditions;
(g) contingency plan describing actions to be taken for equipment breakdown, unauthorized
waste arriving at the facility,pills, and fires;
a discussion of compliance with the operational requirements listed in Rule .1406 of this
Section; and
0 for Large f T e l Lar e T e 2 Lar e T e 3 and all T e o
facilities, include the following:
a description of procedures for incoming material inspections;
ii a description of procedures to meet the final product sampling and analyses
requirements specified in in Rule .1407 of this Section;
120

A-123
1 iii a description of procedures to meet the record keeping requirements specified in
2 Rule .1408 of this Section; and
3 iv a copy of all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals necessary
4 for the operation of the facility.
5 n(-7) A a report on the design of the facility, including:
6 La)(A) Design the design capacity of the facility;
7 (12)(E) A a process flow diagram of the entire facility, including the type, size, and location of all
8 major equipment equipment and feedstock flow streams. The flow streams shall indicate
9 the quantity of materials by on a we weight and volume; volumetrie bas
10 Lc) a description and sizing of the storage facilities for feedstocks, amendments, and finished
11 compost;
12 LdI(E} T4+e the means for measuring, shredding, mixing, and proportioning input materials;
13 Le)(D) Antieipate the anticipated process duration, including receiving, preparation, composting,
14 curing, and distribution;
15 ((E) A a description of the location of all temperature, air [air -,I temperature and any other type
16 of monitoring points; points within the compost windrow, and the frequency of monitoring;
17 (g)(F) A a description of how the temperature control and monitoring equipment will demonstrate
18 that the facility meets the requirements in Rule .1406(11), (12, , or (13) .' ^n4"� lf— t1 m
19 ("'�2) of this Section, as appropriate for the feedstock;
20 (12)(G) T4+e the method of aeration provided and the capacity of aeration equipment; and
21 0(14) A a description of the method to control surface water run-on and nan off, run-off and the
22 method to control, collect, treat, and dispose of leachate generated. generated;
23 (D the separation, processing storage, and ultimate disposal of non-compostable materials, if
24 applicable;
25 a description of dust control and other air emission control measures; and
26 (1) a description of recycling or other material handling processes used at the facility.
27 10 Odor Control Plan. Operators of Large Type 2, Large Type 3, and all Type 4 facilities shall prepare,
28 submit to the Division, and implement an odor control plan that details site specific conditions to
29 meet the design requirement in Rule .1404(c)(4) of this Section. Existing facilities permitted prior
30 to the readopted effective date of this Rule shall meet these requirements at the time of permit
31 renewal. The plan shall contain the following:
32 (a) an identification of all onsite potential odor sources;
33 (b) a description of onsite weather conditions that would affect odor migration, such as
34 prevailing wind direction, topography, and seasonal variations;
35 (c) a plan to monitor onsite odor and record odor data for the odor sources with the potential
36 to migrate offsite. Data shall include date, time, site specific conditions, weather
37 conditions, wind direction, and characteristics and intensity of odor;
121

A-124
d) a description of the facilitv's odor complaint protocol, includine forms used, odor
2 verification by operator both onsite and offsite, what the response will be, and who will be
3 contacted;
4 (e) a description of complaint record keeping; and
5 (�f a description of odor control design and operating best management practices to be used
6 onsite, includine:
7 0 personnel training;
8 ii feedstock characteristics;
9 iii the initial mixing of feedstocks to reach targeted carbon to nitrogen (C:N) [r
10 ratios and moisture levels;
11 iv maintenance of compost piles for moisture;
12 (v) aeration methods, frequency, and protocol;
13 vi leachate and liquids management;
14 vii weather monitoring and protocol;
15 viii management of airborne emissions; and
16 ix windrow [covering-.] covering;
17 (9) A description of the label or other information souree that meets the FequiFements of Rule.! 407(k)
18 of this motion.
19 11 (9) ors engineering plans and specifications for the facility, including manufacturer's performance
20 data for all equipmentselected; and
21 (12) documentation that the local fire protection authority has been notified of the site use.
22 [(12) a description of procedures for permanent closure of the facilit)-, in accordance with Rule . 14 1
23 this Section, should the faeility elose.]
24 () A detailed operation and maintenance manual ouch
25 A quality assurnMee plan for the process and final product "ich lists the procedures used
26 in inspeeting ineoming material;
monitoring, saffipling and analyzing the eompost pr-eeess-
27 and Arai .,.duet testing sehe „le and ,.o or-dkeep ng r-e ,,;.e fflents;
28 (B) Contingeney plans detailing --medial aetion to be taken in the event o
29 ; spills, and
30 undesirable conditions such as fires, vectors and odors; and
31 An explanation of how the facility will comply with operational requirements as outh
32 in Rule .14 06 of this Section, detailed operational information and instmetion, an outline
33 of reports to be submitted in compliance with this Section, and safaty instructions.
34 cnTAsbuiltdfawings where applieabk-
35 (b) The fellowing iafet:Famian is required for- an appliemian for- a pefmit to eanstfuet a prepesed Large 2 or 3 o"
122

/_QiMI
1
0)
An drawing, ineh is less than to 400 feet,
aeFial photogFaph oF sealed wheFe one oF equal aeeuFately
2
showing the aFea within one fouFth of the mile of the pFoposed site's boundaFies with the following
3
eeifie ll.. identified!
4
(A) Efitir-e property owned or- !eased by the person proposing the .41,
5
,
6
water-eourses, df�, sans, and other applieable ififeiq:nation r-egar-ding the general topography
7
within one rottith mile; an
8
(G) Land use and zoning of the site.
9
(2)
A letteF from the having the that
tinit of govemment zoning juFisdietion oveF site whieh states
10
pFoposed use is allowed within the existing zonifig, if any, and that any neeessat=y zoning appFoval
11
0 ;r has been ,.btai,,v,l
12
An how the design in Rule
(3)
explanation of site eomplies with siting and stafidar-ds .1404 of
13
seetielr
14
(4)
A detailed le re oi4 ;,i,1;eati,,,. the foil i g-
15}Waste
type(s), source and quantity of the solid waste to be oomposted, including the sowee
16
and expeeted quantity of any bulking agent oF amendment (if applieable), any expeet
17
Feeyele of bulking agent oF eompost, and a" seasonal vaFiations in the solid waste type -Of
18
may;
19
�9) For f6eilities whieh iitilize natofal soils as a pad, a soil evaltiation Of the site eofiddeted by
20
a soil seiefitist down to a depth of four feet of to bedr-oek or- evidenee of a Seasonal high
21
'Arater- table, to evaluate all ehefflieal and physieal soil PF-epefties and depth ef the seasonal
22
high wate.. table,
23
(5)
Site plans at a seale where one ineh is less than or equal to 100 feet to the inch that delineates the
24
following:
26
�R) 1=06ation a -ad elevations Of dikes, treflehes, and Other water 60fitrol deviees a -ad sti-detures-
27
for the dive.-.,io and eofitr-olled removal of .....-F ee water-;
28
Desigfiated setb ek biag r zones and , er-ty l;,,vs.
29
Proposed .,*;1;tie and stni tur-e&.
31
(F) ,
32
(G)
34
(4 Proposed s ,rf ee and R n,1.. ater- w n;*,..;,,,.1,.e lions;
35
04 Flood plains a«a weti.-ads...,,,1
36
(J) >��s.
37
(67
A dese.-;..r;,,« of the operation of the F ,.;l;r.. whieh Must ; el..,ly at ..
123

IG1spil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
ON
33
34
35
36
C'7
124

A-127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
($)
The following
{ ,
collect, treat and dispose of'lo.,,.h to generated; an
(-L) A desefiption of any rwyeling or other material handling prooesses used at the faeilioy.
A desefiption of the label or other- information source that meets the re"irefnef4s of Rule .14 07(k)
ef this Seetien.
Engineering plans and speeifiemiefis faf the f4eility, ineluding manufaetur-er's performance data
all equipment selected.
information is for t;ar to Type 4 Large Typ-e
9
(e)
2 or 3 solid waste
required reviewing an application a pet:mit opet:ate a or-
composting facility:
10
(4)
Contingency plans detailing corrective or remedial action to be taken in the event of equipm
11
; spills, and undesirable
12
;
13
(2)
,
14
,
15
detailed operational information and instmetion, equipment maintenanee, list of personnel, required
16
personnel training, outline of reports to be submitted in eomplianee with this Seetion, and safe
17
��s
18
(4)
A quality assurance plan for- the process and final product which lists the proeedures used i
19
; mon4ofing, sampling and analyzing the eompost pfeeess and final
20
odueesting sehe,l..l" ,l ke .;r, r" o oft".
Nr t � to "�a ro erl
21
(4)
,
22
detention times, storage capaeity, and flow rates (wet weight andvolumetrie) for- the system an
23
t chosen;
24
(5)
As built drawings;
25
(
, and Feder -a! permits and approvals neeessary for- the proper
26
"r"*; e fthe f edit-.; "*a
27
P7
Product maA�eting and distfibu4ioa plan,
28
29
";t., r the
addition of new F ",lsteek .. mer-i l"
30
31
History Note:
Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
32
Eff. December 1, 1991;
33
Amended Eff.' May 1, 1996. 1996;
34
Readopted ff. November 1, 2019.
125

A-128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
15A NCAC 13B .1406 is readopted with changes as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
15A NCAC 13B .1406 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COMPOST
FACILITIES
AnY A person who maintains or operates a solid waste compost facility shall maintain and operate the site to conform
with the following „fae ^ practices and operational requirements of this Rule.
(1) Plan and Permit Requirements.
Ca)(A) Approved Constmetion plans and conditions of the permit shall be followed. followed;
(b)(B) A copy of the permit, plans, and operational reports shall be maintained on site at all times.
(2) Adequate erosion Erosion control measures shall be practiced to prevent on -site erosion and to
control the movement of silt or contaminants from the site.
(3) Stormwater S.� shall be diverted from the operations area. operational, eampost
aa star -age
(4) Leachate shall be contained on site and treated to meet the standards of the applicable off -site
disposal method.
(5) Access and Security Requirements.
(a)(A) Large situ facilities as defined in Rule .1402(e)(7) of this Section shall be secured by
means of gates, chains, berms, fences, or other security measures demonstrated to provide
equivalent protection and be approved by the Divisien, Division. to prevent „ra'ath ^a
b�(B) An operator shall be on duty at the site at all times while the facility is open for public use
use, to ensure compliance with operational requirements and access to such facilities shall
be controlled.
Lc)(q The access road to the site shall be of all-weather construction and maintained. maintained
in ^a condition-.
(6) A site shall only accept those solid wastes that it is permitted to receive.
(7) Safety Requirements.
La)(A) Open burning of solid waste is shall be prohibited.
1]2�(B) Equipment shall be provided to control accidental fires and arrangements made with the
local fire protection agency to ?date! provide fire -fighting services when needed.
Lc)(C) Personnel training shall be provided to ire ensure that all employees are trained in site
specific safety, remedial, and corrective action procedures.
Reporting Fires. Fires shall be reported to the Division orally within 24 hours of the incident and in
writing within 15 days of the incident.
J9,)(-g) Sign Requirements.
126

A-129
1 O(A) Signs providing information on waste that can may be received, dumping procedures, the
2 hours during which the site is open for public use, the permit number and other pertinent
3 information shall be posted at the site entrance.
4 1]2�(B) Traffic s:,.��s signs and markers shall be provided
5 orderly tfa ffie pa**ef to direct traffic to and from the discharge area and to maintain
6 efficient operating conditions.
7 Cc)(£) Signs shall be posted stating that no hazardous waste, asbestos containing waste, or medical
8 waste can may be received at the site.
9 (UO (9) Monitoring Requirements.
10 Ca)W Specified monitoring and reporting requirements shall be met. Temperature monitoring
11 shall meet the record -keeping requirements in Rule .1408 of this Section.
12 1]2�(B) The temperature of all compost produced shall be monitored sufficiently to ensure that the
13 pathogen reduction criteria is are met. Onsite thermometers shall be calibrated annually
14 and records of calibration shall be maintained.
15 (11){�A) Compost process at Type 1 and Type 2 facilities shall be maintained at or above 55 degrees Celsius
16 (131 degrees F) -3 for three days and aerated to maintain elevated temperatures.
17 tU2 Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR). Types 2, 3 and 4 facilities shall maintain the compost process
18 at a temperature above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees F) for 14 days or longer and the average
19 temperature for that time shall be higher than 45 degrees Celsius 013 degrees R (1 3 degrees F)
20 ,
21
22 reference, including any subsequent amendments or additions.
23 tU3 (1-2-) Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFM. The composting process shall qualify as a process to
24 further reduce pathogens for all Type 3 and Type 4 facilities. The following arc shall be acceptable
25 methods:
26 La)(A) T4+e the windrow composting method, in which the following requirements apply: Aer-ebie
27
28 .
29 .
30 0 aerobic conditions shall be maintained during the composting process;
31 ii a temperature of 131 degrees F (55 degrees Celsius, or greater shall be maintained
32 in the windrow for at least 15 days; and
33 iii duringthe he high temperature period, the windrow shall be turned at least five times.
34 �b (9) T4+e the static aerated pile composting method, in which the following requirements apply:
35
36
37
127

A-130
1 G) aerobic conditions shall be maintained during the composting process; and
2 tW the temperature of the compost pile shall be maintained at 131 degrees F (55
3 degrees Celsius) or greater for at least three days.
4 Lc){) T4+e the within -vessel composting method, in which the temperature in the compost piles
5 shall be maintained at a minimal temperature of 131 degrees F (55 degrees Celsius) for
6
three days.
7
(U4
Nitrogen bearing wastes shall be incorporated as necessary to minimize odor and the migration o
8
nutrients. Putrescible feedstocks added to the compost process shall be incorporated in such a
9
manner to control odor.
10
(L5)
The finished compost shall meet the classification, testing, and distribution requirements in Rule
11
.1407 of this Section.
12
16
The amount of compost stored at the facility shall not exceed the designed storage capacity.
13
17
The site shall be operated to minimize odors at the property boundary
14
18
Odor Corrective Action.
15
La) If the Odor Control Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .1405(10) of this Section has
16
been followed and offsite odors are not being minimized, the owner or operator shall
17
submit for approval by the Division an Odor Corrective Action Report. The report shall
18
contain the following:
19
(i) a summary of the actions taken in the Odor Control Plan;
20
ii an identification of onsite odor sources, in order of severity;
21
iii an evaluation and identification of odorous feedstocks as they relate to odor
22
complaints;
23
iv
an evaluation of current operation process indicators including carbon to nitrogen
24
(C:N)ratio, pH, moisture content, oxygen levels, temperature, porosity, , and
25
particle size;
26
(v)
an evaluation of the compost recipe calculation with C:N ratio testing that is
27
performed by an independent laboratory for each feedstock;
28
vi
an identification of potential offsite odor receptors based on their proximity to the
29
odor sources and on weather patterns;
30
vii
a description of new odor reduction methods, if proposed, and an evaluation of
31
their feasibility, in terms of effectiveness, cost, and equipment needs;
32
ix
an evaluation of the elimination of specific odorous feedstocks; and
33
(x)
recommendations for implementing new odor minimization practices, including
34
a schedule.
35
(b) The Division may require the elimination of specific odorous feedstocks if a facility fails
36
to meet the odor minimization criteria required by Item (17) of this Rule.
128

A-131
Lc) Additional corrective action measures shall be developed and implemented as necessary to
2 meet the requirements of Item (17) of this Rule to minimize odors at the property boundary.
3 19 Compost Facility Training Requirements.
4 (a) Facilities permitted as Large Type 1, Large Type 2, all Type 3, and all Type 4 shall have
5 an operator, supervisor, or manager trained in accordance with the requirements in G.S.
6 130A-309.25. No less than one trained operator, supervisor, or manager meeting the
7 requirements of this Sub -item shall be onsite during the facility's perating hours or
8 available at a phone number provided in the facility permit.
9 G) Training from a Division -approved training course shall be required ever. five
10 years. Approval of other training to meet this requirement may be requested by
11 the facility. The Division shall approve other training in cases where the facility_
12 can demonstrate other training is at least equivalent to the Division -approved
13 training courses.
14 fjjPersons who have achieved and maintain compost iffianagefLcertification
15 Division apprfrom a com ost rrranag}certification pro rg am approved by
16 the Division, such as certification by the US Composting Council Certification
17 Commission, shall be considered as having met these training requirements for
18 the permitted facility.
19 (b) Facilities shall be required to provide annual training for facility staff, including a review
20 of the operations plan and permit documents.
21 (c) Documentation of training required in Sub -items (a) and (b) of this Item shall be
22 maintained at the facility and made available to the Division upon request unless otherwise
23 approved by the Division.
24 Cd) Facilities permitted before the readopted effective date of this Rule shall meet the
25 requirements of Sub -item (a) of this Item within three years of the readopted effective date
26 of this Rule. Facilities permitted after the readopted effective date of this Rule shall meet
27 the requirements of Sub -item (a) of this Item within 18 months of permit issuance.
29 (A) The finished eampast shall meet the elassifiemian and distmi�tttiea r-e"irements outlined
30 inRule . 14 07 of this Section.
31
(B)
The quality of the final product shall determine the allowable uses as outlined in Rule 14 07
32
of i.� s Section,
33
(E}The
final produet shall be approved by the Solid Waste Section as outlined in Rule 1
35
(}) Non eompostable solid waste and unacceptable eempest shall be disposed in a
36
selid waste fnaaagefneR4 f4eility permitted to receive the pa-Aieulaf type of waste under
37
15A NCAG 13B
129

A-132
1 (0 The amou-PA of compost stored at the facility shall not exceed the designed stor-ag
2 capacity.
4 History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
5 Eff. December 1, 1991;
6 RRC objection Eff. April 18, 1996 due to lack of statutory authority;
7 Amended Eff. June 1, 1996 1996;
8 Readopted Ef.November 1, 2019.
130

A-133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
15A NCAC 13B .1407 is readopted with changes as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
15A NCAC 13B .1407 GLASSIFIGATIOVDISTRJBUTION CLASSIFICATION, TESTING, AND
DISTRIBUTION OF SOLID WASTE COMPOST PRODUCTS
(a) Gampest shall not be applied te the land or seld of given away if the eeneentfatien of any metal exceeds the
eaneef4rmiaa in 40 GFR 502.13(b)(3) [See Table 1 belew], unless the eeneefi4rmiea of all metals are less than the
values in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(1) and records are maintained to show eompliance with the cumulative and annual metal
A1'senie 44
Cadmium �9
capper 4-599
Lad 3-09
Nlercur- 4-7
Nickel 420
can 36
2w
Manmade
>6 NA
131

A-134
1 Grade
A have
distribution. This be distribute
compost shall unlimited,
unfestrieted product may
2 direetly
to the publie;
3
(2)
4 agfieultufo
(e « food „hai efops)
p eet.,; an
5 Compest
that is
Type 1 faeility gia4
(3.)
er- ffmieh pfedueed
at a and eentains minimal pathogenic
6
is
7
handling the
have distributions if direetions
per-sens
eempest, shall
unrestrieted applieations and are
8 provided
with the eompost pr.,. uet
9 Solid be distributed
the
has test
(e) waste compost products may not
10 data to the Division in Rule 09 this
or marketed until
Section. Within 30 days
permittee provided adequate
the test data, the Divisio
as ottflined .14 of
11
of
reeeipt of
12 distfibution As long the test da4a
in Rule 08 this Seetien
to that
scheme. as FeEpaifed
13 to the this Rule,
.14 of
eafitifmes verify eaffl-pes
predueed speeifieatiens ef
14
15 A grief lt„ro Fertilizer- Section e g the distribution
16 (g) if the intends to distribute the the
of this pr.,duet
instmetions
to the
owner produet,
17
owner shall provide
The following information
user on any restr-ietio
be label
on use and reeommended safe uses and applieation
18 information label information
rates.
be
shall provided on a Of
to the Solid Waste Section:
an sheet and a copy ofthe or
sheet shall submitted
19 () !' lassif4e,ti,.....fade ., outlined if D. fagraph (d) of this Rule;
21 (3.) A,.plieati, Fates;
22 (4) Restrictions on a
usage;
23 (57 Total TAT (for products containing sludge),
24 (a) Compost or mulch that is produced at a Type 1 [f ^;rt 1 th t contains minimal pathogenic organisms,! facility,
25 is free from offensive odor, landl contains no shah particles, and, for compost, has met the temperature requirements
26 in Rule .1406(11) of this Section shall be classified Grade A and have unrestricted application and distribution.
27 Compost analytical testing shall not be required for Type 1 compost if temperature requirements in Rule .140601) of
28 this Section have been met and documented.
29 (b) Compost produced from Type 2, 3, and 4 facilities shall be sampled and analyzed as follows:
30 W a composite sample of the compost produced at each compost facility shall be analyzed at intervals
31 of every 20,000 tons of compost produced or every six months, whichever comes first, for metals
32 and pathos
33 Q compost samples shall be analyzed for the metals listed in 40 CFR 503.13(b(3), except that anal
34 for mercury shall not be required for Type 2 and 3 facilities, and analysis for arsenic and selenium
35 shall not be required for Type 2 facilities. The concentration of metals in compost offered for sale
36 or distribution to the public shall not exceed the pollutant concentration limits listed in 40 CFR
37 503.13(b)(3). 40 CFR 503.13 and 40 CFR 503.32 are incorporated by reference including
132

A-135
subseauent amendments and editions. Conies of the Code of Federal Regulations may be obtained
2
from the U.S. Government Publishing Office website at www.gpo.gov at no cost;
3 (3)
compost samples shall be analyzed for pathogens, either for fecal coliform or salmonella bacteria.
4
The concentration of pathogens in compost offered for sale or distribution to the public shall not
5
exceed the concentration limits listed in 40 CFR 503.32(a)(3);
6 (4)
sample collection, preservation, and analysis shall assure valid and representative results. At least
7
three individual samples of equal volume shall be taken from each batch produced in separate areas
8
along the side of the batch. Each sampling point shall be sampled from a depth of two to six feet
9
into the pile from the outside surface of the pile as follows:
10
metals samples shall be composited and accumulated over a six-month period or at
11
intervals of every 20,000 tons of product produced, whichever comes first; and
12
(B) pathogens samples shall be a representative composite sample of the compost and shall be
13
processed within a period of time required by the testing procedure;
14 (5)
analytical testing methods shall be in accordance with the procedures of one of the following:
15
EPA publication SW-846, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical
16
Methods." This document is incorporated by reference, includingsubsequent ubsequent amendments
17
and editions, and may be obtained free of charge at https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846;
18 the U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Compost Council publication "Test Methods for
19 the Examination of Composting and Compost" (TMECC). This document is incorporated
20 by reference includingsubsequent amendments and editions, and may be obtained for a fee
21 of [t*e} three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) f at
22 https:Hcompostingcouncil.org/tmecc/ or a copy may be reviewed free of charge at the
23 Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section office at 217 West Jones Street,
24 Raleigh, N.C. 27603; or
25 LQ other applicable standards approved by the Division; and
26 (6) the Division may decrease or increase the parameters to be analyzed or the frequency of analysis
27 based upon monitoring data, changes in the waste stream or processing, or information re ag rding
28 the potential for the presence of contaminants that are not required to be analyzed in this Para rg anh.
29 (c) Compost produced from Types 2, 3, and 4 facilities that meet the requirements of Subpara rag phs (b)(2) and (b
30 of this Rule shall be classified Grade A compost and shall have unlimited, unrestricted [distri«n.]distribution,
31 except as otherwise determined by the Division based on analyses of parameters pursuant to Subparagraph (b)((6) of
32 this Rule.
33 ( The facility operator shall be responsible for meetingtquirements of the North Carolina Department of
34 Agriculture and Consumer Services Plant Industry Division Seed and Fertilizer Section concerning the distribution of
35 this product.
36
37 History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-309.11;
133

A-136
1 Eff. December 1, 1991;
2 RRC objection Eff. April 18, 1996 due to lack of statutory authority;
3 Amended Eff. June 1, 1996 1996;
4 Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
134

A-137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15A NCAC 13B .1408 is readopted as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
15A NCAC 13B .1408 METHODS FOR TESTING RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
(a) The eempest preduet ffam T-5Te 2, 3, and 4 f6eilifies shall be sampled and analyzed as fellows:
of every 20,000 tons of eompost produced or every six months, whichever- comes first, for t
parameters for each Type of f4eility as designated in Table 3 of this Rule. Standard methed
equivalent to these in Table 3 may be approved by the Division.
Pafamete U*4 Faeility Test Method
Foreign Matte % all see Subparagraph (d) of this Rule
Arsenicmg/kg ar f `v`° - Type-4 See Append A
Cadmiu mg/kg T all
cluemittvT Type 4
coppe ffig4g dfy wt. all
Lead wt. all
Niekel fng4Eg dFy wt. a14
ele--n-iu- v'T Type
zine all
Pathogens See Appendix B all See Append i2
Total % see? Kjeldahl
e�iMers�rerfr>>ss!e�r.�:
eer:rr_rs�s_ ..
. �..
135

A-138
1
(
B.
2
(4)
The Division may deere the parameters to be analyzed or the frequeney of analysis
3
based upen menitefing date, ehanges in the waste stream of pfoeessing, or infermatien regaMing
zn
4
the poten4ial fef presenee ef texie substanees tha4 are net on the list ef menitefing pafameters.
5
(-5)
Fereign fna4er eentent shall be detefmined by passing a dr-ied, weighed sample of the comp
6
preduet thfough a ene "ai4er ineh ser-een. EPA Method 160.3 shall be used to d+y the sample. T
7
material remaining on the screen shall be visually inspeeted, and the foreign matter that can We
8
clearly identified shall be separated and weighed. The weigh4 of the separated foreign matter &vid
9
by the weight of the total sample shall be determined and multiplied by 100. This shall be the peree
10
dry weight of the foreignmatter content,
11
La)(b) Record
Keeping: All faeili Facili owners or operators shall maintain records for a fniniffmM of
12
no less than five years. Reser-ds The following records shall be available for inspection by Division personnel during
13
normal business hours and shall be sent to the Division upon request:
14
(1)
Dai4y daily operational records must bemaintained, whieh ineluae, at a minimum, that include
15
temperature data (length of the composting period) and quantity of material processed;
16
(2)
Analytical analytical results on of compost testing;
17
(3)
The the quantity, type tvne and source of waste received;
18
(4)
The the quantity and type of waste processed into compost;
19
(5)
The quantity and type of , est pre"eed by r ,."et ells. fie..tie ; an the odor mana eg ment
20
records required by Rule .1405(10) of this Section; and
21
(6)
The the quantity and of compost removed for use or disposal, by p .,."et ells. fie *���, disposal
22
and the market or permitted disposal facility.
23
(lh)(0 Annual
Reporting: An annual report for the period July 1 to June 30 shall be submitted by all facility owners
24
or operators to
the Division by August 1, 1996 and eve by August 1 of each ye thereafte and shall contain:
25
(1)
The the facility name, address, and permit number;
26
(2)
T1}e the total quantity in tons, with sludge values expressed in dry weight, and the type of waste
27
received at the facility during the year covered by the report, including tons of waste received from
28
local governments of origin;
29 (3) The total "afftity in tons, w" sludge values expr-essed in &Y weight, and t"e of waste pr-eeessed
30 into compost during the year covered by the report;
31 �D(4) The the total quantity in tons and "e of compost produced at the f edit. by product elassific t ^^
32 facility during the year covered by the report;
33 (4�(5) The the total quantity in tons and type of compost removed for use or disposal from the facility,
34 facili during the
35 year covered by the report;
36 f5j(o Monthly monthly temperature monitoring to support Rule .1406 of this Section; and
136

A-139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(6)(7) Results of tests required in Table 3 of this the results of analytical testing required by Rule
.1407 of this Section.
Lc){4} Yearly totals of solid waste received and composted shall be reported back to the local government of origin
for annual recycling reporting.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
RRC objection Eff. April 18, 1996 due to lack of statutory authority;
Amended Eff.' June 1, 1996 1996;
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
137

A-140
1 15A NCAC 13B .1409 is readopted with changes as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
2
3 15A NCAC 13B .1409 APuun�L OF ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES AND PROCEDURES,
4 VERMICOMPOSTING, AND ANAEROBIC DIGESTION REQUIREMENTS
5 (a) An owner or operator of a composting f4eility, facility subject to the provisions of this Section may request
6 in writing the approval of an alternative procedure for the facility or the compost that is produced. The following
7 information shall be submitted to the Solid Waste Section:
8
(1)
The the specific facility for which the exception is requested;
9
(2)
The the specific provisions of this Section for which the exception is requested;
10
(3)
The the basis for the exception;
11
(4)
eke the alternate procedure or requirement for which the approval is sought and a demonstration
12
that the alternate procedure or requirement provides equivalent protection of the public health and
13
the environment; and
14
(5)
A a demonstration of the effectiveness of the proposed alternate procedure.
15
(Vermicompost Facilities. This Paragraph shall be applicable to vermicompost facilities that receive solid waste
16
as defined in G.S. 130A-290. Facilities that receive only animal manure or only municipal wastewater treatment
17
sludge, or both, shall not be subject to this Paragraph.
18
W
The following operations shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section:
19
(A) backyard vennicomposting; and
20
(B) farming operations where the vermicompost is produced from materials grown on the
21
owner's land and re -used on the owner's land.
22
Q
Vermicompost facilities meeting the following conditions shall be exempt from the permitting
23 requirements in Rule .1405 of this Section;
24 the site receives pre- and post -consumer food waste, manure, vegetative agricultural waste,
25 yard and garden waste, untreated, unpainted, and uncontaminated wood material, source
26 separated paper, or any combination thereof,
27 (B) no more than 100 cubic yards of material shall be onsite at any time. This volume shall
28 include feedstock storage, processing, pre -composting, and active vermicomposting, but
29 shall not include finished vermicompost;
30 fCC) outdoor areas of the site used for feedstock storage, processing, pre -composting, or
31 vermicomposting in open areas or open containers or bins shall meet the siting criteria and
32 setback requirements of Rule .1404(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this Section, except that the
33 minimum setback to the property line shall be at least 50 feet and the minimum setback to
34 residences or dwellings not owned and occupied by the owner or operator shall be at least
35 200 feet;
138

A-141
1 outdoor feedstock storage, processing, pre -composting, and vermicomposting operations
2 areas, that are enclosed on all sides in containers or bins shall maintain a minimum setback
3 to the property line of at least 25 feet;
4 (F) the site operates in such a manner that dust and odors do not constitute a public nuisance;
5 (G) surface water shall be diverted from the operational and storage areas. Leachate shall be
6 contained onsite and treated to meet the standards of the applicable off -site disposal
7 method;
8 for facilities producing vermicompost that is distributed to the public or used in public
9 areas, the owner meets the pathogen testing and record keeping requirements of Rule
10 .1407(b) and .1408(a) of this Section for a Type 3 facility; and
11 (1) the site operates in accordance with all applicable State or local laws, ordinances, rules,
12 reaulations, or orders.
13 (3) A permit shall be required for vermicompost facilities that do not meet the conditions of
14 Subpara rag phs (1) or (2) of this Paragraph.A permit application for a vermicompostin fg acility shall
15 include the information required by Rules .1404 and .1405 of this Section, except that Rules
16 .1405(9)(D through (9)(h) of this Section do not apply. Operations or parts of operations that are
17 indoors shall be exempt from the siting requirements of Rule .1404 of this Section. Permitted
18 vermicompostin,g facilities shall be subject to:
19 (AA) [ Rule .1 4061 through 9 14 and 16 of this Section;
20 (B) [ Rule .1407 of this Section•
21 (C) [ Rule .1408 of this Section• and
22 (M [ Rule .1410 of this Section.
23 (c) Anaerobic Digestion Facilities. This Paragraph shall be applicable to anaerobic digestion facilities that receive
24 solid waste as defined in G.S. 130A-290. Facilities that receive only animal manure or only municipal wastewater
25 treatment sludge, or both, shall not be subject to this Paragraph.
26 (1) A solid waste management permit shall be required for the areas of the facility that manage solid
27 waste. These areas shall include the incoming waste receiving area, the digestate handling area, and
28 the digestate final disposition and any other areas of the operation where solid waste is exposed to
29 the environment.
30 (2) A permit application shall contain:
31 the information required by Rules .1404 and .1405 of this Section, with the exception of
32 Rule .1405(9)(fl through (9)(h). Operations or parts of operations that are in buildings
33 enclosed on all sides shall be exempt from the siting requirements of Rule .1404 of this
34 Section; and
35 (B) detailed drawings of the following within the waste management areas:
36 (i) hoppers, bays, or vessels, and all other site -specific features related to solid waste
37 management activities; and
139

A-142
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
91H
ii for indoor operations, plan and profile drawings of the buildings with areas and
features labeled.
Permitted anaerobic digestion facilities shall be subject to:
[the eer- tier l ro eerrs of ]Rule .1406(1) through (9), (14), and (16) of this Section;
[the sampling a -a testing ro ee is of ]Rule .1407 of this Section for the di esg tate;
[the ro ,.Aiag and ro erdkeep* e& ]Rule .1408 of this Section; and
[the ^'were requirements of ]Rule .1410 of this Section.
(b) An individual may request iff writing the approval of a solid waste composting pilot or demonstration project
the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of such a project. The following infer-mation shall be submitted to the Solid
Waste Seetiow.
(47) The owner, operator-, leemien, and eantaet Pvuff�bers for the project;
Calevaluated;
C=7 ,
(4) ;
l-5l >
(6) A description of all testing procedures to be used;
C77
A description of the process to be used, including the method of eompostifig and details of the
method of aeration;
Cal ,
and
f�An outline of the final repai4 to be submitted to the Solid Waste Seetien upon eewpletion of the
pr-ejee
t.
(e) For Paragraph (a) of this Rule, the Division will review altemative proeedures only to the extent that adequa
staffing : available.
(d) Permits shall not be required for primary and secondary seheel edueational pFojeets that take place on the sehoe4
groii«ds and that receive loss than o ,.,,1.ic yard of'material p week.
History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. December 1, 1991;
RRC objection due to lack of statutory authority Eff. April 18, 1996;
Amended Ef.June 1, 1996 1996;
Readopted Eff. November 1, 2019.
IM

A-143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15A NCAC 13B .1410 is adopted as published in 33:24 NCR 2373 as follows:
15A NCAC 13B .1410 CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
(a) When the permitted compost facility ceases operations, the owner or operator shall meet the following conditions:
all feedstock and unfinished compost materials shall be removed from the site and taken to a
permitted solid waste facility within 180 days, unless otherwise approved by the Division;
Q finished compost materials left onsite shall comply with G.S. 130A-309.05; and
0 the owner or operator shall notify the Division in writing upon completion of the requirements of
Subparagraph (1) of this Paragaph.
( When a permitted compost facility has been closed in accordance with the requirements of the Division, the permit
shall be terminated. Future compost operations at the site shall require a new permit pursuant to this Section.
HistoryNote: AuthoribyG.S. 130A-294; 130A-309.03; 130A-309.11; 130A-309.29;
Eff. November 1, 2019.
141