13B_.0100-.0700.1300_HearingOfficersReport

M
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF
PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PERIOD
Readoption and Amendments to
15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (except .0531-.0547)
Solid Waste Management
Environmental Management Commission
November 19, 2020

I1M
Basic Information
Commission: Environmental Management Commission
Groundwater and Waste Management Committee
Agency Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management,
Solid Waste Section
Title Solid Waste Management
Citations 15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (except .0531-.0547)
Description of the It is the responsibility of the Division of Waste Management Solid Waste
Proposed Rules 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. Sections .0100 - .0400 regulate general solid waste
management, general permitting, treatment and processing facilities, and
transfer facilities. Rules .0503 - .0505, .0510, .0601 and .0602 regulate
sanitary landfills that are not subject to Rules .0531 - .0547 or Section .1600;
Rules .0508 and .0509 regulate incinerators; Rule .0562 regulates beneficial
fill activities for inert debris that are not subject to permitting; and Rules .0563
- .0567 regulate land clearing and inert debris landfills
Agency Contact Jessica Montie
Environmental Program Consultant
[e-mail]
[phone]
Authority G.S. 130A-294; G.S. 15013-21.3A
Statement of Necessity These rules are proposed for readoption in accordance with G.S. 15013-
21.3A.
Hearing Officer EMC Commissioner Steve Keen
Comment Period August 17, 2020 to October 16, 2020
Public Hearings September 22, 2020 for Sections .0100 - .0400, .0700 and .1300
September 24, 2020 for Sections .0500 and .0600
Comment Summary Verbal comments were received from two stakeholders on the proposed
rules at the September 22, 2020 public hearing, and no comments were
received at the September 24, 2020 public hearing. Six written comments
were received from interested parties on the proposed rules during the public
comment period.
Appendices TABLE 1 - Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
APPENDIX 1 —Agency Head Certification
APPENDIX 2 — Hearing Officer Designation Memo
APPENDIX 3 — Hearing Attendance Sheet and Transcript
APPENDIX 4 — Written Comments Received During the Comment Period

D-3
Rule Summary and Backaround
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.
Existing rules adopted under the authority of 130A-294 that establish requirements for general solid
waste management, general permitting, treatment and processing facilities, transfer facilities,
incinerators, land clearing and inert debris landfills, and sanitary landfills that are not subject to Rules
.0531 -.0547 or Section .1600 are found in Subchapter 13B, Sections .0100 - .0600.
15A NCAC 13B Sections .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (except .0531 - .0547) are proposed for readoption
in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.3A. The existing rules are required to be readopted by the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) by the deadline established by the Rules Review
Commission (RRC) of April 30, 2021. Rules .0531 through .0547 were readopted as part of a separate
rule package for construction and demolition landfills, and the comments on those rules were addressed
in a separate hearing officer's report. General amendments to the rules include updates to conform to
statute requirements for life -of -site permitting and other changes to statutes since these rules were last
adopted, and to put into rule requirements that were previously required for permit approval or in
practice. The amendments also include adding multiple references to statute requirements and statutory
changes, making updates to information, clarifications, technical corrections, and changes to conform
to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
Two fiscal notes were prepared for this rule set because they were originally proposed separately; but
were combined into one rule set prior to publication: one for Section .0400 for transfer facilities, and the
other for Sections .0100 - .0300, .0500, and .0600. No fiscal note is required for Sections .0700 and
.1300 since they are proposed for repeal. The North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management
(OSBM) initially approved the fiscal note for Section .0400 on March 17, 2020. Some revisions were
made to the rules and the fiscal note after approval, and the revised version of the fiscal note was
approved for publication on April 13, 2020. OSBM approved the fiscal note for Sections .0100 - .0300,
.0500, and .0600 for publication on May 6, 2020. Both analyses indicated some impacts to state and
local governments and the regulated community, but no substantial economic impact as a result of the
amendments.
Public Comment and Hearing
The proposed rules and the two fiscal notes were approved by the EMC to proceed to public comment
and hearing at the July 9, 2020 EMC meeting, and Commissioner Steve Keen was designated as the
hearing officer. The Agency Certification and Hearing Officer Designation Memo are included in
Appendices 1 and 2, respectively.
The proposed rules were published in the NC Register, and the proposed rules and the two fiscal notes
were published on the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) proposed rules website throughout
the public comment period from August 17, 2020 through October 16, 2020:
https://deg.nc.gov/documents/15a-ncac-13b-0100-0700-and-1300-solid-waste-management
The Notice of Text was published in NC Register Volume 35 Issue 04, page 452:
https://files.nc.gov/ncoah/documents/files/Volume-35-issue-04-August-17-2020 O.pdf.
The Division also sent a link to the published notice, rule text, and two fiscal notes for public comment
to interested parties including industry stakeholders, environmental groups, solid waste management
organizations, licensing boards, the League of Municipalities, and the Association of County
Commissioners via e-mail on August 14, 2020.

D-4
Public Hearin
The Division held two virtual public hearings via WebEx Events for this rule set at the links provided in
the public notice. The public hearing for Sections .0100 - .0400, .0700, and .1300 took place on
September 22, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. The public hearing for Sections .0500 - .0600 (except .0531 - .0547)
took place on September 24, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Steve Keen served as the hearing officer
for both of the public hearings. The public notice also provided a link for attendees to register to speak
at the hearing. The hearing attendance sheet and transcript can be found in Appendix 3. The
September 22, 2020 public hearing was attended by representatives of the NC Conservation Network,
the Waterkeeper Alliance, and the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Comments were provided at the September 22, 2020 hearing by Alfre Wimberley with the NC
Conservation Network, and Will Hendrick with the Waterkeeper Alliance. The comments were regarding
the assessment of cumulative impacts in the permitting process, and the leachate management
requirements for all solid waste management facilities. The two commentors also provided a written
copy of their comments following the hearing as a combined comment from the NC Conservation
Network and the Waterkeeper Alliance, and also the Southern Environmental Law Center; therefore,
the verbal comments are addressed in the section regarding their written comment in Table 1. No
comments were received at the September 24, 2020 hearing.
Written Comments
Written comments that were received during the comment period can be found in Appendix 4. A
summary of the written comments received and the Division's responses to those comments are
provided in Table 1. Written comments were received from the following interested parties:
• Phil Carter on behalf of the National Waste & Recycling Association - North Carolina Chapter
(NC NWRA)
• Alfre Wimberley on behalf of the NC Conservation Network, Will Hendrick on behalf of the
Waterkeeper Alliance, and Chandra Taylor on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center
• Scott Greene on behalf of the NC Board for Licensed Soil Scientists
• Larry Baldwin with the Consulting Soil Scientists of the Carolinas, Inc.
• Keith Larick on behalf of the NC Farm Bureau Federation
• Scott Atwell of Iredell County
Rule Changes Made After the Comment Period
The Division has made multiple changes to the rules as a result of the comments received. Those
changes are highlighted in Table 1, and in the rule text in Attachment A as provided on the November
19, 2020 EMC meeting agenda. Most of the changes were made for clarification or technical correction.
The Division also made the following additional changes for further clarification based on internal staff
comments and discussion during the comment period:
• The definition of "mulch" is revised to clarify that material generated from the chipping or grinding
of wooden pallets can be used in mulch as long as the wood used in their construction is naturally
occurring and has not been engineered, treated, or manufactured like the examples provided in
the first sentence of the definition.
• The definition of "pathological waste" is revised to remove underlined text that the Division had
proposed to add in two places when it was published for comment, because the added text
narrowed the definition and would likely make the definition more difficult to comply with and
enforce, especially in consideration of the coronavirus pandemic. The use of the terms
"pathogen" and "known or suspected infectious disease" in the existing definition have not been
a point of confusion to the regulated community, and therefore will be retained without the

IMI
proposed qualifying phrases regarding being "transmissible to humans," since transmissibility
would be difficult to determine or predict.
The statement regarding setting a surface water standard in Rule .0602(c) was removed, since
the language appeared to create a conflict with existing rules and procedures to establish
surface water standards in 15A NCAC 02B. Rule .0602(c) now only states that sites shall not
cause an exceedance of the surface water standards in 02B.
Summary
Six written comments were received from interested parties during the public comment period on 15A
NCAC 13B and Sections .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (not including Rules .0531 - .0547, which were
addressed under a separate hearing officer's report). Two comments were provided at the September
22, 2020 public hearing on behalf of NC Conservation Network and the Waterkeeper Alliance, and
written versions of the comments were provided after the hearing. The Division has made multiple
changes to the rules as a result of the comments received, and some changes for clarification after
further internal discussion. All of those changes are highlighted in the rule text in Attachment A as
provided on the November 19, 2020 EMC meeting agenda. The changes made in response to
comments are also highlighted in the attached Table 1.
Hearing Officer's Recommendation
The Hearing Officer recommends that the Environmental Management Commission repeal 15A NCAC
13B Rules .0204, .0501, .0502, .0701 - .0706, and .1301, and adopt amendments to Sections .0100 -
.0600 (except Rules .0531 - .0547) including the highlighted changes made after the public comment
period as presented at the November 19, 2020 EMC meeting as Attachment A.

9Xy
TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
MWA
Comments submitted verbally on 9/22/20, and in writing on 10/15/20 by Alfre Wimberley, NC Conservation Network, Chandra Taylor, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Will Hendrick, Waterkeeper Alliance
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0100 - .0600
Dear Hearing Officer Keen,
Response to Item #1: The ruleset needs amendments to achieve
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule changes to the Solid Waste Management Rules. The North
environmental justice.
Carolina Conservation Network, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Waterkeeper Alliance are organizations that advocate for a just
and sustainable future for North Carolina. Supporters of all three organizations live in communities across the state, many in proximity to
The process and procedures for consideration of cumulative impact and
sites that will be regulated by the proposed rules.
environmental justice have been a priority of the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Division of Waste Management
We support the proposed improvements to the leachate management plans for new permits. Nonetheless, the package needs additional
(Division) — Solid Waste Section is at the forefront of the efforts by
changes to ensure that permits issued under these rules will genuinely protect communities and comply with state law. We urge the North
requiring such consideration during the solid waste permit process. Even
Carolina Environmental Management Commission to revise the proposed rules to ensure that facility permits comply with Title VI of the
so, the Division agrees that further clarification as to how the cumulative
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also take account of increasingly intense weather events. This will protect the prosperity of communities, the
impact requirements of the statutes are implemented during permitting
integrity of the permitting process, and protect public health and safety. We stand in support of communities who desire to maintain a
are needed. Any rule or application procedures must include a robust
healthy environment where they live and work.
stakeholder process and this process could not be completed in time to
have rule language drafted and published for public comment to meet the
1. The ruleset needs amendments to achieve environmental justice.
readoption deadline for this ruleset.
Both federal and state law requires that North Carolina's solid waste rules prevent discriminatory distribution of the impacts of waste
Response to Item #2: The ruleset needs amendments to address the
facilities. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act protects Americans from discrimination. Title VI protection was a concern at the heart of debates of
ongoing impact of climate change.
North Carolina's general NPDES permit for swine facilities. The lack of explicit protections in the permitting process for vulnerable
southeastern North Carolina communities left those residents without equal protection from environmental threats. This inequity led the
Solid waste management facilities are critical community infrastructure in
EPA to express "deep concerns about the possibility that African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans have been subjected to
general and especially so in providing for community recovery after
discrimination..."' in North Carolina. Going forward, the NC Department of Environmental Quality ("NCDEQ") agreed to be "committed to
severe weather events. It is important that the facilities are available to
ensuring compliance with Title VI and EPA implementing regulations by evaluating whether policies and programs have a disparate impact
accept the vast amounts of waste generated by the events and during
on the basis of race"z and to "increase awareness of environmental conditions among communities of color [as well as] low-income.. [and]
cleanup efforts. The Division believes that at present, the siting, design,
indigenous communities... among industry and permitted entities.'"
and operational criteria established in rule and current storm
preparedness efforts are adequate for ensuring the integrity of facilities
In state solid waste law, NCGS §130A-294(a)(4c)(9) requires that the Division of Waste Management deny a permit to a facility that will
during these increasing storms. Aside from temporary shutdowns during
disproportionately impact a minority or low-income community. Without a structure for assessing cumulative impact and community
and immediately following landfall in recent hurricanes, even after 500-
demographics spelled out in the rule, the agency has no way to demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirement. Without clearly
year storm flooding events across eastern NC, our existing facilities
demonstrated statutory compliance, communities across North Carolina are being put at risk by the Department. Additionally, maintaining
sustained minimal impacts and were able to come back online generally
permitting processes without Title VI assessments increase the chance that any given permit can be contested and litigated for
within 24-36 hours to support normal waste generation and storm
undetermined periods of time, increasing uncertainty and cost for local communities and regulated parties alike. Considering this threat, the
recovery efforts. The Division will continue to evaluate impacts to
Department should build clear regulatory parameters to implement the statutory mandate of N.C.G.S. §130A- 294(a)(4)(c)(9). Those clear
facilities as storms intensify; and can require modifications at specific
parameters by which communities should be considered include, but are not limited to: relevant impacts of a TSD facility, a Title VI
affected facilities or make rule changes for broader concerns, as
assessment, and a definitive threshold of considerations for disproportionate adverse impacts.
necessary. This ruleset is required to be reviewed again in 7 to 10 years
in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.3A. We can address necessary
North Carolina has a history of locating solid waste facilities in communities of color and low-income areas.3 Municipal Solid Waste
changes at that time as rule development in this regard will take robust
("MSW"), Construction and Demolition ("C&D"), and hazardous waste landfills are additional environmental burdens on communities
stakeholder involvement.
already struggling economically. Previous research has shown that landfills can decrease the value of homes within 2 miles of a solid
waste facility by up to 12% and prices can be depressed for up to 6.2 miles from landfill sites.4 Incinerators, additionally, had the most
Leachate Management Plans
negative impact on local home prices during construction and operation as well.5
Rule changes involving Ieachate management plans for landfills with
Ieachate collection systems were recently adopted by the EMC and
Since pollution from landfills can be toxic, there is an increased risk of Ieachate carrying toxic chemicals into nearby soil and groundwater.6
approved by the Rules Review Commission, although ten of those rules
Leachate releases should be very concerning given recent statewide PFAS pollution.' Toxic releases from chemicals like PFAS, that can
received letters of objection, and are now subject to legislative review
be found in landfill Ieachate, have already compromised numerous water and soil resources. In the Southeast, a study revealed nearby
(Rules .0532, .0534, .0535, .0545, .1602, .1603, .1604, .1617, .1626, and
homes lost value as toxic discharges increased and gained value as they decreased.8 Depressed home values due to increased
.1631), which will delay the effective of this ruleset. LCIDs which are
environmental hazards by waste management sites discourage economic development in the area and risk thriving communities.
addressed in the current ruleset do not collect Ieachate and are required
to implement best management practices to minimize infiltration
More disturbingly, a 2011 study found that home values were particularly impacted if local water resources were compromised. Even after
(applying operational, intermediate, and final cover) and divert
pollution cleanup had concluded, often home values in the previously afflicted areas did not recover.9 Whether closed or open, landfills
stormwater from active fill areas. Applicants for industrial landfills would
November 19, 2020 Page 6 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
M-1
Comments submitted verbally on 9/22/20, and in writing on 10/15/20 by Alfre Wimberley, NC Conservation Network, Chandra Taylor, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Will Hendrick, Waterkeeper Alliance
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
depress the economic prosperity of the local area. Landfills depress the economic potential of these areas by inflicting long-term losses,
be required to provide leachate collection and removal, to provide
require local municipalities to monitor the sites in the communities continuously, and present a perpetual environmental health hazard.
leachate storage, and to describe leachate management activities in their
operations plans.
Requested Action
Leachate outbreaks
As previously mentioned, federal and state statutes prevent discrimination against communities protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
The Division's Solid Waste Section does not use the acronym TSD for
of 1964. To be able to show that the Department has followed statutory mandates to consider disparate adverse impacts on communities
their regulated facilities. TSD is the abbreviation for hazardous waste
of color in the solid waste permitting process, the ruleset must:
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Leachate outbreaks/releases
at non -hazardous solid waste landfills and other solid waste management
• Require a full analysis of the disparate and cumulative impacts of a project on the local community where the permitting decision is
facilities are not always related to storm events or climate change.
being considered.
These events are investigated on a case -by -case basis and site -specific
• Make permit approval conditioned upon the elimination or mitigation of cumulative impacts.
remedies are required. To minimize leachate generation, landfills are
• Forecast permit denials where conditions cannot address the disparate impacts.
required to keep the active waste area to a minimum, to apply
• Provide clarity to applicants where Transfer, Storage, and Disposal ("TSD") facilities should not be located due to existing
intermittent and intermediate soil cover, and to direct stormwater away
cumulative impacts in certain communities.
from the working face of the landfill. Prior to storm events, facilities
• Provide meaningful engagement opportunities for traditionally disenfranchised communities along with multilingual presentations.
generally maximize available leachate storage at the site by sending
• Ensure that facilities that can have cross -divisional permitting impact, like incinerators, have a single analysis of cumulative impact.
stored leachate to publicly -owned treatment works (POTW), assess and
• Require that all previously permitted facilities comply with the updated siting requirements in section .0403 in the proposed rule set
repair cover and stormwater management features, and close early so
when their permits are up for renewal.
that the working face can be compacted and covered before the event.
These are all ways that DEQ can take constructive steps to support its words of giving "particular attention to marginalized communities
Assessment of changing flood zones at landfills.
due to socio-economic status, race, ethnicity, and language usage, using procedures that provide for early identification and integration of
Current federal and state siting criteria restrict or discourage
public concerns into permitting decisions."10
development in the 100-year floodplain. The Division has not witnessed
any flooding issues at permitted facilities, and feels the current rule is
2. The ruleset needs amendments to address the ongoing impact of climate change.
satisfactory for now. The Division will continue to monitor and make
changes as necessary.
With warmer temperatures year-round, North Carolina has begun experiencing more extreme precipitation events accompanied by intense
Requiring a buffer to flood zones
flooding. Additionally, sea level is rising approximately two times faster on the northeastern coast of the State in comparison to the
southeastern coast." Increased sea levels mean increased chance of water intrusion where it may not have been before and place both
See the response regarding floodplains above. The Division does not
active and inactive landfill sites in flood zones that may not have previously existed or been high risk.
propose any change to the floodplain siting requirements at this time.
Moreover, the increased water will push leachate management systems to the limit as the years progress, possibly rendering some
Require that existing facilities comply with the updated siting
leachate systems inadequate.
requirements in section .0403 at permit renewal
Existing facilities will be exempted from the new siting requirements. The
A United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) October 2019 report hints at the new dangers of a changing climate, noting that
Division does not feel that it is necessary to close or require major
up to 60% of Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) are expected to be endangered by effects of climate change.12 With the
modifications to any currently operating transfer facilities because of
financial burden of climate change and existing landfill sites, it is even more important that low-income and minority communities are
siting issues. Expansions to existing buildings or facilities will be required
considered in the permitting and management of solid waste facilities. When these increasingly more common natural disasters or extreme
to meet the new standard.
events occur, it is these communities that struggle more than others to recover.13
North Carolina does have records of unpermitted leachate spills in previous years. With more extreme weather, solid waste facilities could
find it harder to manage leachate effectively.14 The May 2020 NC Climate Science Report expects the upward trend in precipitation to
continue in North Carolina: it is "very likely that extreme precipitation frequency and intensity in North Carolina will increase due to higher
atmospheric water vapor content."15 This expectation aligns with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ("NOAA's") 2019
report expecting a 27% increase in the volume of the 99th percentile range, or the top 1 %, of precipitation events across the Southeast
region.16 A leachate collection system designed to hold and manage the rainfall events of the past could regularly fail in the future.
In North Carolina statute, G.S. 130A-294(b) requires the EMC "[to] enforce rules to implement a comprehensive statewide solid waste
management program. The rules shall be consistent with applicable State and federal law; and shall be designed to protect the public
November 19, 2020 Page 7 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
�1
Comments submitted verbally on 9/22/20, and in writing on 10/15/20 by Alfre Wimberley, NC Conservation Network, Chandra Taylor, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Will Hendrick, Waterkeeper Alliance
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
health, safety, and welfare; preserve the environment; and provide for the greatest possible conservation of cultural and natural resources."
This statute implies that landfills should be required to increase precautions in light of changing environmental factors to protect North
Carolina communities. The expected climatic changes require stronger leachate management plans for all permitted solid waste facilities to
protect local communities from leachate overflow events.
Requested Action
In the context of existing North Carolina statutes, the EMC should consider climate change and its impact on the resilience of landfills
moving forward. Recommended actions include:
• Requiring all landfills to improve leachate management plans to satisfy the new leachate standards in this rule set.
• Prioritizing scrutiny of TSD sites that have previous leachate outbreaks.
• Assessing currently permitted landfills' changing flood zones in order to adjust management plans for more intense flooding events.
• Prohibiting permitting for TSD sites in or within a certain distance of flood zone areas, due to the increased intensity of precipitation
and moving flood zone boundaries across the Southeast.
• Requiring that all previously permitted facilities comply with the updated siting requirements in section .0403 in the proposed rule set
when their permits are up for renewal.
3. Conclusion
NCDEQ and the EMC have a legal duty to protect permittees, traditionally disenfranchised citizens, and the economic health of
communities where the Department approves permits for TSD facilities by complying with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
accounting for a changing climate future. With growing uncertainty of the effect of climate change on the State, steps should be taken now
to upgrade currently permitted facilities and future sited facility standards to match the projected future rainfall. More extreme storm events
will increase the possibility of leachate releases, water intrusion or flooding in new places, and closed facilities being compromised by a
changed environment.
Finally, supporting the promulgation of explicit Title VI regulations will grant Departmental permits greater security from legal action while
better documenting cumulative impact. Better documented cumulative impacts will protect already overburdened communities from
additional pollution across the state. Additionally, DEQ has tools like the Community Mapping Tool already launched that can help in the
effort to develop procedures for permittees and the Department, as well as locate zones where additional siting of TSD facilities should no
longer occur.
All these changes work to strengthen the permitting process for the Department and permittees while limiting the additional burden on
traditionally disenfranchised communities.
(1-16 - see footnotes provided in the comment letter in Appendix 4.)
November 19, 2020 Page 8 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
MR$]
Comments Submitted on 10/1/20 by Phil Carter, Legislative Committee Chair on behalf of the NC Chapter of the National Waste & Recycling Association (NC NWRA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0101(7)
The definition of "Cell" appears to only apply to an area that has been filled and completely
This rule has been revised to remove the definition of "cell" because the term is not used anywhere in the Subchapter
covered. What term is used when the area has not been filled and covered?
except in the rules pertaining to C&D and MSW landfills, and the term is defined for those two landfill types in Rules
.0537(c) and .1619(c), respectively.
.0101(15)
The second sentence contains the word "may". Definitions need to be clear and the use of
The rule has been revised to replace the phrase "may include" with the word "includes" in the definition for C&D waste.
the word "may" does not provide clarity.
.0207(c)(4)
N.C.G.S. 130A-294(a4) says that a life -of -site permit shall survive the expiration of a local
While G.S. 130A-294(a4) allows a life -of -site permit to extend beyond an existing local government franchise agreement,
government approval or franchise and the landfill can operate until the term of the life -of-
it does not remove the requirement for a local government approval, therefore submittal of a copy of the local government
site permit. With this statute, there is no need for local government approval for the life -of-
approval is still necessary.
site and a copy of the agreement for the life -of -site should not be required to be submitted
with the application for a life -of -site permit from the Solid Waste Section.
.0401(a)(2)(B)
Would the addition or modification of a building, not related to waste handling, on a transfer
Any structure or waste handling area added or modified within the existing permitted operational boundaries is not
station site existing before the effective date of this rule, be subject to the new siting
required to comply with the siting requirements. Any structure or waste handling area added outside the existing
requirements? For instance, would the addition of a shed to store scrap tires for collection
permitted operational boundaries is subject to the requirements. The rule has been revised to further clarify what is meant
trigger the buffer requirements in 15A NCAC 13B .0403(a)(6)?
by "existing footprint" to be the "existing permitted operational boundary" as established in the permit under existing rules.
.0401(b)(3)
If a transfer station is dormant, is there a provision for conducting the assessment, but
The Division is not aware of any transfer station that has been permitted and constructed; but is not currently being used
delaying completion of the required items until such time as the owner or operator desires
as a transfer station or other permitted solid waste management facility. The requirements for the transition period in Rule
to place the transfer station back in service?
.0401(b) are intended only to apply to transfer stations that have a current and effective permit at the time that these rules
become effective, and the rule has been revised to clarify this fact. Rule .0401(b)(3) allows the facility to submit a request
for an extended deadline, and the request would be considered by the Division on a case -by -case basis as stated in this
subparagraph.
.0403(b)(7) and
Conflict in these rules for existing facilities that are exempt from .0403(b)(1). Rule
The Division agrees that the language created a conflict; and Rules .0403(b)(7) and .0405(c) have been revised to clarify
.0405(c)
.0401(a)(2) says that an existing facility is not required to comply with Rule .0403(b)(1).
that the facility has options for managing leachate generated from vehicles and storage containers to accommodate the
Rule .0403(b)(1) says that a site has to be designed and construction so that all solid
design and construction of both existing and new facilities.
waste storage occurs on an impervious surface. Because an existing facility does not have
to be designed and constructed such that storage occurs on an impervious surface, then
the vehicles and containers that contain solid waste should not be required to be staged
within the perimeter of a leachate collection system, as required in .0403(b)(7). A similar
conflict exists in 15A NCAC 13B .0405(c) The proper resolution of this conflict is to add
15A NCAC 13B .0403(b)(7) and 15A NCAC 13B .0405(c) to the exemptions listed in rule
15A NCAC 13B .0401(a)(2)(A) and (B).
.0404(g)(3)
Is there a requirement that the agencies listed in this rule provide a written response within
NC DNCR's Natural Heritage Program provides an online Data Explorer system that allows users to submit a request
a specified period after a request for a letter has been made?
online; and the system generates an automated response letter within a relatively short period of time. In the Division's
experience, the response is usually received within the same day of submittal. NC DNCR's State Historic Preservation
Office is allowed no less than 30 days to respond to the request, per statute. Note that the location of archaeological sites
or burial grounds, which is necessary for any excavation and landfill project, is not accessible on any web -based platform,
per NC general statute.
.0405(a)(2)
This operational requirement implies that a groundwater and surface water monitoring
Rule .0405(a)(2) has been revised to clarify the requirements for groundwater and surface water protection to clarify that
program is required, but there is no other reference to such a program for transfer facilities.
only a release of leachate or contaminants to the environment will trigger the need for determining compliance with
How would this requirement be monitored or enforced?
standards and any corrective actions.
.0405(a)(9)(F)
Because collection vehicles often collect from more than one jurisdiction on a given route,
Rule .0405(a)(9) has been revised to remove Part (F).
it is impossible for the transfer station operator to determine if a given material is from a
jurisdiction that banned it for disposal. Enforcement of this provision is not possible by the
transfer station operator.
November 19, 2020 Page 9 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
Comments Submitted on 10/1/20 by Phil Carter, Legislative Committee Chair on behalf of the NC Chapter of the National Waste & Recycling Association (NC NWRA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0400 Fiscal
"Costs and Benefits by Entity (1) Private Industry and Local Government -Owned
The cost estimate ranges used in the fiscal note are based on information provided by a private sector waste company for
Note
Facilities", regarding costs for the facility assessment and report:
varying facility types and ages, and the ranges provided take into account that costs could be greater or less than costs
The cost for an engineer's assessment of a transfer station, many of which were built in the
provided by the private company. Also, the rule only requires that the assessment be completed by a licensed
early 1990's, could vary greatly, depending on a variety of factors, and exceed the
professional if it is required by G.S. 89C or 89E and not under the purview of another licensed profession. The rule does
estimates provided in the fiscal note. Age of the facility, whether the assessment is done
not directly require an engineer. The rule has also been revised to say the "...report or parts thereof, shall be
as part of a larger engineering agreement or as in independent engagement and the
completed..." to clarify that it is not necessary for the entire assessment to be completed by the licensed professional, if
geographic location of the facility could increase the cost of completing the assessment.
only a portion of the assessment is required to be conducted by a licensed professional under G.S. 89C or 89E.
November 19, 2020 Page 10 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
1115K
Comment Submitted on 8/15/2020 by R. Scott Greene, Chairman, on behalf of the NC Board for Licensed Soil Scientists
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0101(57)
It appears that this rule readoption defines a soil scientist and a licensed soil scientist differently. This should not be.
The definition for the term "soil scientist" has now been removed from this rule. The term was
Soil Science is regulated by 89F which states "Soil Scientist" means a person who practices soil science. In North
not used anywhere in Subchapter 13B, so it is also unnecessary. Any use of "soil scientist" is
Carolina practicing soil science without a license is a misdemeanor.
preceded by the word "licensed" throughout Subchapter 13B.
89F-7 Exemptions.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person who practices or offers to practice soil science in
the State is subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
(b) The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
(1) Persons engaged solely in teaching soil science or engaged solely in soil science research.
(2) Officers and employees of the United States, and units of local government who practice soil science solely
in the capacity of the office or employment.
(3) Officers and employees of companies engaged in the practice of soil science, when the officers and
employees practice soil science solely in the capacity of their employment and who do not offer their services
to the public for hire. (1995, c. 414, s. 1.)
§ 89F-19. Prohibitions; unlawful acts.
(a) It is unlawful for any person other than a licensed soil scientist or a subordinate, under the soil scientist's direction
to conduct or participate in any practice of soil science or\prepare any soil science reports, maps, or documents
related to the public welfare or the safeguarding of life, health, property, or the environment.
§ 89F-22. Misdemeanors.
A person who does any of the following shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor:
(1) Willfully practices soil science or offers to practice soil science for any other person in this State without being
licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
The NC Board for Licensed Soil Scientist object the rule readoption, specifically we object to the definition of soil
scientist, for the aforementioned reasons. I am available to discuss this further if needed.
November 19, 2020 Page 11 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
UaiKl
Comments Submitted on 9/4/2020 by Larry Baldwin, CPSS / NCLSS, Consulting Soil Scientists of the Carolinas, Inc.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0101(37)
The CSSC fully agrees the definition of "Licensed soil scientist" is accurate and as
Thank you for your comment.
regulated under NC General Statute (NCGS) 89F by the NC Board for Licensing of
Soil Scientists (NCBLSS).
.0101(51)
As proposed, the new definition of "Seasonal high groundwater table" or "SHG7 is
Chapter 130A of the General Statutes uses the term seasonal high water table in 3 locations and uses the term seasonal high
arbitrary, not recognized by the scientific community, and creates confusion as to
rg oundwater table in 8 locations. Neither term is defined in G.S. 130A-290 or elsewhere in Chapter 130A, therefore the Division
whether the rules refer to a perched water table, apparent water table, unconfined
is attempting to define both of these terms in Subchapter 13B during the rule readoption process. In the general statutes
aquifer, confined aquifer, etc. The depth to seasonal high soil saturation is a
pertaining to sanitary landfills, coal combustion residual landfills and structural fills, and other landfill activities, the term "seasonal
critical parameter within the current or proposed solid waste rules as to proper
high groundwater table" is generally used. Most of the existing rules in Subchapter 13B for landfill construction also used the
siting requirements. The guiding NCGS 130A-290... refers to "seasonal high
term seasonal high groundwater table. The Division added the definition for the term seasonal high groundwater table in Rules
water table", and also has a definitive meaning within the established scientific
.0532 and .1602 for C&D and MSW landfills during rule readoption to apply to landfills only.
community as follows: (i.e.)
- "Seasonal High Saturation (SHS) formerly termed seasonal high water
However, in Section .0800 for septage management, which contains requirements pertaining to the use of soil and soil layers,
table (SHWT) is characterized by zero or positive pressure in the soil-
land application of septage, and nutrient uptake, the term "seasonal high water table" is used and is defined in Rule .0831. This
water, long enough to produce anaerobic conditions. The resulting
definition is worded to be identical to the same term defined in the EMC rules for stormwater management (15A NCAC 02H
anaerobiosis promotes biogeochemical processes such as the reduction,
.1002). The definition of SHWT in septage Rule 13B .0831 and Rule 02H .1002 are tailored specifically for septage land
translocation, and accumulation of iron and other elements forming
application practices or are limited to cases in which water table conditions are found within the soil horizon.
redoximorphic indicators. "
The Division proposed the separate definition for SHGT in response to a public comment received from a consultant in October
2016 when the report for the periodic review of existing rules was published for comment. The comment stated that the seasonal
high water table definition in Rule .0831 "...defines SHWT as in `soil';" and asked: "What if the groundwater is in rock beneath the
proposed landfill? Would this geological condition preclude the requirement to determine the SHWT?" The question was
referring to the fact that the bottom of landfills are often located well below the soil horizon. Because the definition for SHWT in
Rule .0831 would not necessarily apply for landfills, the Division had proposed a definition of SHGT for C&D and MSW landfill
rules tailored to technical specifications for siting and constructing landfills, which addresses SHGT in the `uppermost aquifer'.
Uppermost aquifer includes site conditions in which water table is found not just in soil horizon, but also at greater depths in
unconsolidated sediments, partially weathered rock, and/or bedrock.
In response to this comment, Rule .0101 has been revised to remove the definition for "seasonal high groundwater table" to
avoid any confusion that this definition is intended to apply anywhere outside of solid waste landfill construction and design
requirements. However, the definition of SHGT and the use of this term will be retained in the rules applicable to landfills in
Sections .0500 and .1600.
.0101(56)
As proposed, the definition of "Soil" is not accurate as defined and creates a
While the Division understands the concern of creating a conflict with G.S. 89F, the definition in G.S. 89F-3 states that "soil"
conflict with NCGS 89F. The definition as cited under NCGS 89F-3-6 should be
includes any contaminants in the soil. Because solid waste management has different requirements for the handling and disposal
used (i.e.):
of soil based on whether the soil is contaminated or uncontaminated, utilizing a definition that always includes contaminants as
"(6) "Soil" means the site or environmental setting consisting of soil material,
being a part of soil will create confusion for disposal requirements (see the response to comments provided by the NC Farm
saprolite, weathered materials, and soil rock interface. "Soil" includes the solid
Bureau below regarding soil used for fill).
materials, waters, gases, and other biological, chemical, and contaminant
materials in the soil environment."
The definition of "soil" proposed in Rule .0101(56) is not new language in Subchapter 13B, because this was an existing
definition in Rule .0831 for septage management, which has only been copied here to be applicable to the entire Subchapter. To
avoid any confusion over contaminated vs. uncontaminated soil where this term is used in Subchapter 13B, the proposed
definition that was copied from Rule .0831 has been retained.
.0101(57)
As proposed, there is a separate re -definition of "Soil scientist" which creates a
The definition for the term "soil scientist" has been removed from this rule. The term was not used anywhere in Subchapter 13B,
direct conflict with established NCGS 89-F regulated by the NCBLSS. This
so it is also unnecessary. Any use of "soil scientist" is preceded by the word "licensed" throughout Subchapter 13B.
generalized definition of "Soil scientist" within the proposed rules should be
removed. Please refer to NCGS 89-F-3 3, 4, 8; 89F-10; 89F-19.
.0101(69)
As proposed, there is another separate definition of "Water table and Groundwater
This rule has been revised to state that "water table" means the term defined in Rule 15A NCAC 02L .0102 (and removed the
table" which is arbitrary, and creates confusion as to whether the rules refer to a
reference to "groundwater table" since it is unnecessary).
November 19, 2020 Page 12 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
1.15E11
Comments Submitted on 9/4/2020 by Larry Baldwin, CPSS / NCLSS, Consulting Soil Scientists of the Carolinas, Inc.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
perched water table, apparent water table, unconfined aquifer, confined aquifer,
etc. The depth to seasonal high soil saturation is a critical parameter within the
current or proposed solid waste rules as to proper siting requirements. The
guiding NCGS 130A-290... refers to "seasonal high water table". This proposed
definition needs to be clear in meaning and in context with other definitions of the
proposed rules, or removed altogether.
.0202(a)(3)
This proposed rule should directly reference and include licensed soil scientists to
Licensed professional engineer and licensed geologist were mentioned specifically in existing rule because the licensing boards
conduct and certify, site and soil studies, if required by NCGS 89F. Licensed soil
for these two licensed professions have submitted board resolutions to the Division in the past stating that the work required in
scientists are currently omitted and should be encompassed within this proposed
the rules is under the purview of these licensed professions, especially as it pertains to landfills construction and design; and the
rule. The term "soil" is referenced many times within the proposed rules as to
work has historically been done by these two licensed professions. The Division has not received a similar resolution from the
evaluations for site usability, testing, and specifications.
board of licensed soil scientists. However, in order to cover the possibility that some work may be under the purview of licensed
soil scientists, the phrase "...is not under the purview of another licensed profession such as a licensed soil scientist in
accordance with G.S. 89F" has been added to the last sentence of Rule .0202(a)(3).
.0203(e)(4)
NCGS 89F regarding licensed soil scientist should be made a part of this rule. As
See the response to the comment on Rule .0202(a)(3) above. The reference to G.S. 89F has been added to the end of Rule
proposed within this rule 89F licensed soil scientists are omitted.
.0203(e)(4).
.0208(b)(3)(D)
These two rules state governmental web site maps may be utilized for determining
The Division has been evaluating and tracking these temporary debris sites since the NC Disaster Recovery Task Force
and (E)
areas of jurisdictional wetlands or floodways. These governmental maps are quite
(established by E.O. 104 in 1996) made the recommendation that NC DEQ (DEHNR at the time) identify debris staging sites in
general and often inaccurate. These web -based maps should not be used as a
1997. The Division is now putting into rule the process that has been used for the last 23 years to evaluate these sites. The intent
basis for determining jurisdictional wetlands or floodways.
of establishing these temporary sites and of adding this rule is to ensure that disaster recovery is expedited for local
governments across NC, and no additional delays or time-consuming processes slow down recovery. These sites often need to
be reviewed multiple sites at a time, and in a very short timeframe following a storm, flooding event, or other disaster to facilitate
recovery (-50-100 new sites can be reviewed within a month or two after the storm). Therefore, it is necessary for the Division to
be able to use resources that are easily and quickly accessible wherever possible to allow a short review process.
In addition to reviewing these online maps, Solid Waste Section staff conduct an in -person inspection of the site as a part of the
review, and coordinate with regional Division of Water Resources and/or Coastal Management staff regarding any possible
issues with surface water that are noted during the inspection. The Division also coordinates with staff from the NC Dept. of
Cultural and Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program and the State Historic Preservation Office for site review. The online
maps are referenced in this rule because these debris sites are only temporary, the waste will be removed within 6 months and
there is no construction or permanent structures involved. Therefore the need for an explicitly accurate delineation, as would be
needed for a permanent facility, is reduced. Also, these sites are used the majority of the time to collect and process yard waste
and land clearing debris, breaking it down into mulch to be put to use elsewhere.
Clarifying minimum requirements in rule should help prevent local governments from being denied state and/or federal public
assistance in cases where they have inadvertently taken actions during the response that are out of compliance with other
existing federal and state requirements. Some local governments, especially smaller municipalities, may not know that any such
requirements exist, either because of staff turnover, or because they are otherwise not involved in the business of waste
management, disaster recovery, etc. The Division also coordinates regularly with FEMA and NC Dept. of Public Safety's public
assistance staff before, during and in the month's following a storm regarding these debris sites. Adding the rule also makes
clear to FEMA and DPS staff that no permits are required for these sites as long as the site meets the minimum requirements in
this rule, so that they do not inadvertently deny reimbursement because the site used was not "permitted" as a waste
management site, and there was no law or rule stating that the "unpermitted" use was allowed. The rule also allows some
flexibility for the Division for these sites after an event when it will help the local government expedite recovery.
.0208(b)(5)
The term "white goods" needs to be defined as to its' meaning and what it
The term "white goods" is defined in G.S. 130A-290(a)(44), and Rule .0101 incorporates all of the definitions found in G.S. 130A.
specifically encompasses.
November 19, 2020 Page 13 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
11NU
Comments Submitted on 9/4/2020 by Larry Baldwin, CPSS / NCLSS, Consulting Soil Scientists of the Carolinas, Inc.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0503(b)(4)(B)
The proposed rule states the flexible membrane liner shall be upper 30 mil thick or
The statement regarding 60 mil in the rule is also referring to the upper component since it is discussing the flexible membrane
lower 60 mil thick. Is this correct? In reading the NCGS it should be 30 or 60 one-
layer. The lower component does not consist of FML. The rule has been revised to move that sentence up to directly follow the
thousandths of an inch thick for the flexible membrane liner.
mention of the 30 mil layer to clarify that it is consistent with the statute. If the comment is regarding use of the term mil instead of
one -thousandth of an inch, the rule is correct, because they are the same measurement.
.0504
This rule should include, "and soil" study of the site...
The intent of the requirement is to conduct a geologic and hydrogeologic study specifically for the design of the landfill. The
(c)(3)(A)(iv): This rule should include, "and soil" considerations...
condition or evaluation of the soil horizon does not directly affect the landfill design and construction; and is outside the scope of
(c)(3)(A)(v): This rule should include, "and soil" samples...
what is necessary for landfill design, construction, and permit approval. Because the comment does not state the reason why the
(c)(3)(A)(vii): This rule should include, "or hydromorphological" units...
addition of this language is necessary, and the existing language has been understood by Division staff and the regulated
(c)(3)(D): This rule should include, "or soils" evaluation...
community since the promulgation of this Rule in 1982, the Division recommends that the existing language be retained.
(c)(8)(E): This rule should include, ...a more detailed geologic "or soils" report...
(d)(1): This rule should include, ...pertinent geological "or soil" features...
.0504
(c)(3)(A)(viii): This rule should include, ...; and "estimation of seasonal high water
(c)(3)(A)(viii): This language is only requiring information on the conditions at the time of the soil borings. An estimation of the
table depth by modeling or redoximorphic soil wetness indicators"...
seasonal high groundwater table is not necessary here.
(c)(3)(C): This rule should include, ...; and "estimated seasonal high water table
(c)(3)(C): The rule language referring to the water table requirements has been revised to be worded in an similar manner as the
depth by modeling or redoximorphic soil wetness indicators"...
same requirements for C&D and MSW landfills in Rules .0538 and .1623, which includes discussion of estimating the seasonal
(d)(6): This rule should include, ... groundwater elevation, "estimated seasonal
high groundwater table. These items would have been required in practice to determine compliance with requirements in
high water table elevation by modeling or redoximorphic soil wetness indicators",
existing rule and state regarding vertical separation to groundwater; but were not spelled out in existing rule.
and...
(d)(6): The rule has been revised to include in the cross -sections the seasonal high groundwater water table and bedrock datum
plane contours accordance with Rule .0503(b)(4)(C) (and worded similar to the C&D and MSW landfill rules).
.0504(g)
This rule should include, ...If required by G.S. 89C, 89E, or "89F" and ... licensed
The rule as proposed and published included the phrases "if required by G.S...." and "not under the purview of another licensed
and
professional engineer, licensed geologist, "or licensed soil scientist" shall certify...
profession" to clarify that these rules are not directly requiring a specific licensed profession, and that the general statutes for
.0565(b)
licensing boards and the licensing boards themselves make the determination as to whether any work is under the purview of
that profession. Because Rule .0202 was revised to include a reference to G.S. 89F, no additional change to this rule is
necessary. The plans and drawings developed for the design of a landfill have historically been developed by and are under the
purview of licensed professional engineers and licensed geologists, as has been stated in resolutions by those boards that were
submitted to the Division in the past for these types of plans and drawings. The amendments to the rules are not expected to
change this circumstance. No resolution from the Board of Licensed Soil Scientists has been received by the Division or the
EMC stating that landfill design work involving borings is under the purview of licensed soil scientists.
.0505(a)(2)(A)
Term needs to be changed... "prevent sift mineral soil or sediment from leaving
The term "siltation" defined in proposed Rule .0101(54) has been revised to define "silt" instead, since "siltation" is never used in
and
the site."
the Subchapter, but "silt" is used. Because of this revision, "silt" is defined as being sediment, and the definition of "sediment" in
.0566(5)
Rule .0101 has been revised to reference the definition in G.S. 113A-52 of the Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act, which
includes both mineral and organic particulate matter (the statute definition is the same as the existing definition in Rule .0101).
Therefore, no changes to the two referenced rules are necessary.
November 19, 2020 Page 14 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
MR1.
Comment Submitted on 10/16/2020 by Keith Larick, Natural Resources Director on behalf of the NC Farm Bureau Federation
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0101 and .0562
The North Carolina Farm Bureau (NCFB) is North Carolina's largest general farm organization, representing the interests of farm and
Thank you for your comments in support of the rule changes.
rural people in our State. This letter is to comment on the proposed readoption of rules for the management of solid waste (15A
Rule .0562(c) and (d) have been revised to clarify that uncontaminated soil
NCAC 13B .0501- .0505, .0508-.0510, .0562-.0567, .0601, and .0602). Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
(soil that is not known to be contaminated or meets unrestricted use
standards) is not subject to solid waste permitting requirements under
The practice of beneficial fill has many uses in agriculture. Soil can be used to fill in low spots of a field to make the field usable, or to
Subchapter 13B.
improve production. In addition, fill can be needed to repair washouts of fields and farm roads due to hurricanes or other severe
storms.
NCFB supports the statement in proposed rule 15A NCAC 13B .0562(c) that states, "Soil generated from properties where there has
been no known release of contaminants shall not be subject to regulation as a solid waste." For additional clarity, we feel that this
item should be expanded to make it clear that sites accepting this soil are not required to obtain a solid waste management permit.
NCFB also supports the new definition of "inert debris waste" in 15A NCAC 13B .0101, as it excludes soil from the definition. We
agree that uncontaminated soil is not a solid waste, and we support this regulatory conclusion.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have questions or would like to discuss, please contact me at
[e-mail] or [phone].
November 19, 2020 Page 15 of 16

TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses
OWN
Comment Submitted on 10/14/2020 by Scott Atwell of Iredell County
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0562 - .0567
1 really don't see why the current rules need to be
The intent of the existing rule exemption from permitting for beneficial fill activities was multi -fold: to allow the diversion of inert materials from unnecessary
changed to exclude 2-acre sites for land clearing! I
disposal in permitted lined landfills, and to allow landowners to fill in their properties to promote beneficial use of the land. These fill activities were meant to
think the under 2-acre sites are needed for farmers like
be one-time fill projects over a short timeframe, unlike a landfill which is planned and constructed over a longer period of time. This rule, adopted in 1993,
my situation. It would take long time to find enough
has not been updated to reflect modern fill practices, and contains language that in some cases prohibited the placement of certain soils as fill, limiting
beneficial fill to make land usable for farming. The one-
property development opportunities. Over that time, these rules have been exploited resulting in local and state compliance problems due to nuisance
year rule would not be practical because you have to
conditions, illegally disposed wastes, and excessive filling for no benefit to the properties other than financial gain.
find places that want to get rid of the fill material and
can't work out timing for hauling in all situations! The
Proposed Rule .0562 Paragraphs (c) and (d) clarify that any fill activities using only unrestricted -use soil as the fill material, as is generally the case with
cost and time to get approved under new rules would
agricultural fill activities, are not subject to the requirements of Rule .0562 (or any other solid waste rules), so they do not have to meet any of the size or
make it almost impossible? Least not practical! I'm not
time limits, and are not required to obtain any permit or approval from the Division of Waste Management. For further clarification, Rule .0562(c) and (d) has
aware on any permit requirements now for fill dirt or
been revised to state that uncontaminated soil (soil that is not known to be contaminated or meets unrestricted use standards) is not subject to solid waste
what they will call inert debris waste? I think farmers
permitting requirements under Subchapter 13B. This will result in a relaxation of state level regulations for a vast majority of the fill sites.
need to take advantage of opportunities to improve
farmland without bunch of red tape when they come
The rule amendments still allow fill activities using inert debris to occur without a permit if the activity meets the requirements of Rule .0562(b) for beneficial
available. Usually, from past experience, contractors
fill to keep the fill area under an acre and to complete the fill activity within a year (material can be generated off -site). The only proposed requirement in
are ready to move materials right away when farmers
Rule .0562 that is a change from existing rule or practice is to limit the duration to one year and the size to one acre, but this only applies if there are no
find out so long permitting process would limit
applicable local ordinances that regulate size and duration. These limits make the rule consistent with the intent of beneficial fill, which is to use the
opportunities in my opinion. What I see happen is folks
exemption only for one-time land development projects that have an end date.
dump in places and hope they don't get caught! Make
it hard for ones that try to do it right.
The existing less than 2-acre permit exemption for land clearing and inert debris (LCID) landfills had similar intentions, which were to allow small
businesses, primarily landscaping contractors at the time of the original adoption in 1993, to have small landfills to manage their own business -generated
waste, to help reduce costs, and to prevent unnecessary disposal in lined landfills. These rules were never intended to create two categories of commercial
Iandfilling activities, however, these facilities have evolved over time into being used as a loophole for commercial activities and businesses to not only
avoid paying tipping fees for disposal at permitted LCID or other landfills, and to earn profits by charging tipping fees to allow others to dispose of waste in
their permit -exempt LCID landfills. The proposed rule amendments are intended to close those loopholes in the rules for solid waste management and
make permit requirements equitable for all LCID owners and operators statewide.
Because the under 2-acre landfills were required under existing rule to comply with most of the same requirements as permitted landfills, the rule change
only requires a more robust submittal for permit application and permit fees. However, the operator may charge a tipping fee to recoup these fees. In
addition, under a permit, they would be allowed to expand beyond the original 2-acre footprint if the property will allow it. Rather than require an immediate
closure, proposed Rule .0563(6) allows existing under 2-acre landfills up to 5 years from the effective date of the new rule to fill up their approved 2-acre
allowance without needing to obtain a permit from the Division.
It should also be noted that GS 130A-301.1 continues to allow a property owner to create a less than half -acre disposal area for land clearing and inert
debris waste that is generated on the same property, without being subject to a permit as long as the activity complies fully with that statute.
November 19, 2020 Page 16 of 16

list..]
APPENDIX 1
Agency Head Certification

XMI
CERTIFICATION OF THE AGENCY HEAD
REGARDING COMPLETION OF A FISCAL NOTE AND RULE ANALYSIS
IN RE: 15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (except .0531 - .0547) Solid Waste
Management
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. § 14313-284.
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. § 14313-282(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:
1. 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 Fiscal notes have been prepared and approved by the Office of State
Budget and Management in accordance with G.S. § 15013-21.4. A copy of
the fiscal notes 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.

D-20
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 .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (except
0531 - .0547) Solid Waste Management are in compliance with Executive Order No. 70.
This, the 9t" day of July 2020 at Raleigh, North Carolina.
, RE
Chair
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission

D-21
APPENDIX 2
Hearing Officer Designation Memo

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Roy Cooper, Governor
Michael S. Regan, Secretary
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
July 21, 2020
To: EMC Commissioner Steve P. Keen
David W. Anderson
Shannon M. Arata
Yvonne C. Bailey
Charles Carter
Donna L. Davis
Marion Deerhake
From: Dr. A. Stan Meiburg, Chairman � *_W�_
Subject: Hearing Officer Appointment
D-22
Dr. A. Stan Meiburg
Chairman
Dr. Suzanne Lazorick
Vice -Chair
Robert Gillespie
Patrick K. Harris
Steve Keen
John McAdams
Margaret C. Monast
Dr. Donald van der Vaart
Two public hearings have been scheduled for September 22, 2020 at 4:00 PM and
September 24, 2020 at 6:00 pm via WebEx events. The purpose of these hearings are to receive
comments on the readoption and amendments to the solid waste management rules in 15A NCAC
13B .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (except .0531-.0547) as required by G.S. 15013- 21.3A for the
Periodic Review and Expiration of Existing Rules.
I am hereby appointing you to serve as hearing officer for these hearings. Please receive
all relevant public comment and report your findings and recommendations to the Environmental
Management Commission. Jessica Montie with the Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste
Section will provide staff support for you.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jessica Montie at 919-707-8247,
or me.
cc: Lois Thomas
Jessica Montie
Hearing Record File
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919-707-9023
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

D-23
APPENDIX 3
Hearing Attendance Sheet and Hearing Officer Statement

D-24
Virtual Public Hearing For Readoption of 15A NCAC 13B Sections .0100 - .0400, .0700, and .1300
September 22, 2020 at 4:00 p.m.
Via WebEx Events: Event ID: 167391188988473000, Event Key 1619410693
First Name
Last Name
User Type
Email
Representing
Attended
Registered
to Speak
Join Time
Steve
Keen
Hearing Officer
stevepl<[e-mail]
EMC
Yes
NA
3:51 PM
Deborah
Aja
Host
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
3:43 PM
Ethan
Brown
Alternate Host
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
3:43 PM
Jessica
Montie
Panelist
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
3:39 PM
Jason
Watkins
Panelist
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
3:58 PM
Sherri
Stanley
Panelist
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
4:02 PM
Perry
Sugg
Panelist
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
3:52 PM
Elizabeth
Werner
Attendee
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
4:11 PM
Jordan
Russ
Attendee
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
4:03 PM
Alfre
Wimberley
Attendee
[e-mail]
NC Conservation Network
Yes
Yes
4:03 PM
Will
Hendrick
Attendee
[e-mail]
Waterkeeper Alliance
Yes
Yes
3:58 PM
Chandra
Taylor
Attendee
[e-mail]
SELC
Yes
No
3:57 PM
Imari
Walker
Attendee
[e-mail]
Unknown
Yes
No
3:57 PM
Virtual Public Hearing For Readoption of 15A NCAC 13B Sections .0500 and .0600 (except Rules .0531 - .0547)
September 24, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Via WebEx Events: Event ID: 167392524794605552, Event Key 1615703065
First Name
Last Name
User Type
Email
Representing
Attended
Registered
to Speak
Join Time
Steve
Keen
Hearing Officer
[e-mail]
EMC
Yes
NA
5:50 PM
Deborah
Aja
Host
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
5:28 PM
Ethan
Brown
Alternate Host
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
5:52 PM
Jessica
Montie
Panelist
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
5:54 PM
Jason
Watkins
Panelist
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
5:57 PM
Sherri
Stanley
Panelist
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
5:56 PM
Perry
Sugg
Panelist
[e-mail]
NC DEQ DWM
Yes
NA
5:45 PM

D-25
Hearing Officer's Statement
Hearing Date: September 22, 2020, 4:00 p.m. for
15A NCAC 13B Sections .0100 - .04001.0700, and .1300
Good afternoon, my name is Steve Keen and I am a member of the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission. My role as hearing officer is to receive
comments on the proposed rule actions and the two associated fiscal notes; and
report those comments and recommend action to the full Commission.
During this virtual public hearing tonight, we will be receiving oral comments from
those individuals who requested to speak when they pre -registered for this event. If
you are having technical difficulties with WebEx, you can use the chat feature in
WebEx to ask questions or seek assistance. You can also visit the Department of
Environmental Quality's website using the link in the public notice for this hearing
for instructions on various ways to connect to WebEx.
We will now open the hearing on the proposed readoption of Solid Waste
Management Rules 15A NCAC 13B Sections .0100 through .0400 and repeal of
Sections .0700 and .1300. A separate hearing to accept comments on the readoption
of 15A NCAC 13B Sections .0500 and .0600 (except .0531-.0547) will be held on
Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Two fiscal notes were drafted for these rule changes and approved for publication
by the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management pursuant to G.S.
150B-21.4. The fiscal note for Sections .0100 - .0300 was approved on May 6, 2020,
and the fiscal note for Section .0400 and subsequent revisions was approved on April
30, 2020. The Office of State Budget and Management determined that the proposed
1

D-26
rule actions have state and local government impacts, but no substantial economic
impact to the regulated community.
The public notice for this hearing was published in Volume 35, Issue 04 of the North
Carolina Register on August 17, 2020, and the public notice and the two fiscal notes
were posted on the Department of Environmental Quality's website. The public
notice was also emailed to those on the Division of Waste Management's rules
development email distribution list. We will add the public notice and the proposed
rule changes into the hearing record without reading them at this time.
[Presentation] — Jessica Montie from the Division of Waste Management will now
give a brief overview of the amendments to these rules.
[Jessica Montie with the Division gave a short presentation]
We will now take comments on the readoption of Solid Waste Management Rules
15A NCAC 13B Sections .0100 through .0400 and the repeal of Sections .0700 and
.1300. To do this, I will call the names of each of the pre -registered speakers in order,
and our WebEx Host will unmute the speaker when it is their turn to speak. Please
do not start speaking until the WebEx Host has indicated that your microphone has
been unmuted. It would also be helpful if any person speaking tonight would also
submit a written statement for inclusion into the hearing record.
If we call your name, but cannot hear you after you have been unmuted, please check
to see if you are muted on the WebEx screen on your computer. If you are having
audio issues, try a different method of audio connection within WebEx or use the
"Call Me" feature to have WebEx call your personal telephone line. If we still cannot
2

D-27
hear you, we will proceed to the next registered speaker, but will call your name
again at the end of the hearing.
[Alfre Wimberley with the NC Conservation Network and Will Hendrick with
the Waterkeeper Alliance provided comments at this time. Written versions
of these comments were later provided; and are included in Table I of the
Hearing Officer's Report.]
That is all the speakers on the pre -registration list. Are there any other attendees that
would like to provide a comment at this time?
[The Host called the names of each of the other attendees to ask if they would
like to provide a comment. All other attendees declined to speak.]
If you did not register to speak, but still want to provide comments on the proposed
rulemaking, remember there are several other ways to provide comments until the
end of the comment period on October 16, 2020:
• You can call 919-707-8247 and leave a voicemail message providing your
first and last name, whom you are representing, and your comments on the
proposed rule changes; or
• To provide written comments, please email them to
[e-mail] with "Solid Waste Rule Readoption" in
the subject line. You can also mail written comments to the address listed in
the public notice.
Thank you all for your participation in this virtual public hearing and your interest
in the public hearing process. This hearing is adjourned.
3

D-28
Hearing Officer's Statement
Hearing Date: September 24, 2020, 6:00 p.m. for
15A NCAC 13B Sections .0500 - .0600 (except .0531-.0547)
Good evening, my name is Steve Keen and I am a member of the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission. My role as hearing officer is to receive
comments on the proposed rule actions and the associated fiscal note; and report
those comments and recommend action to the full Commission.
During this virtual public hearing tonight, we will be receiving oral comments from
those individuals who requested to speak when they pre -registered for this event. If
you are having technical difficulties with WebEx, you can use the chat feature in
WebEx to ask questions or seek assistance. You can also visit the Department of
Environmental Quality's website using the link in the public notice for this hearing
for instructions on various ways to connect to WebEx.
We will now open the hearing on the proposed readoption of Solid Waste
Management Rules 15A NCAC 13B Sections .0500 and .0600, except Rules .0531-
.0547 which have already been adopted by the EMC. A separate hearing to accept
comments on the readoption of 15A NCAC 13B Sections .0100 - .0400 and the
repeal of Sections .0700 and .1300 was held on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 4:00
p.m.
A fiscal note was drafted for these rule changes and approved for publication on May
6, 2020 by the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management pursuant to
G.S. 15013-21.4. The Office of State Budget and Management determined that the
1

D-29
proposed rule actions have state and local government impacts, but no substantial
economic impact to the regulated community.
The public notice for this hearing was published in Volume 35, Issue 04 of the North
Carolina Register on August 17, 2020, and the public notice and the fiscal note were
posted on the Department of Environmental Quality's website. The public notice
was also emailed to those on the Division of Waste Management's rules
development email distribution list. We will add the public notice and the proposed
rule changes into the hearing record without reading them at this time.
[Presentation] - Staff from the Division of Waste Management will now give a brief
overview of the amendments to these rules.
[Division staff gave a short presentation]
[Commissioner Keen asked if anyone was in the meeting other than Division
staff. No one else attended the meeting, and no one had signed up to speak.]
There are several other ways to provide comments until the end of the comment
period on October 16, 2020:
• You can call 919-707-8247 and leave a voicemail message providing your
first and last name, whom you are representing, and your comments on the
proposed rule changes; or
• To provide written comments, please email them to
[e-mail] with "Solid Waste Rule Readoption" in
the subject line. You can also mail written comments to the address listed in
the public notice.
2

D-30
[Commissioner Keen asked if any written comments had been received so far.
Ms. Montie mentioned the two comments received from licensed soil
scientists.]
Thank you all for your participation in this virtual public hearing and your interest
in the public hearing process. This hearing is adjourned.

LEI
APPENDIX 4
Written Comments Received During the Comment Period

MW
Montle, Jessica
From: Alfre Wimberley <[e-mail]>
Sent: October 15, 2020 4:43 PM
To: SVC_dwm.publiccomments
Subject: [External] Public Comment on Proposed 15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (except .0531-.0547)
Transfer, Storage, and Disposal Facility Rules
Attachments: _V9_TSDCommentLetter.pdf
%M—xterna I email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
MMMMMLnc.gov
Hello,
I am submitting a public comment letter on behalf of the NC Conservation Network, the Southern Environmental Law
Center, and the Waterkeeper Alliance on the proposed 15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .0700 and .1300 (except .0531-.0547)
Transfer, Storage, and Disposal Facility rule changes. The comment is attached to this email for review.
Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.
Best,
Alfre Wimberley (she/her)
NC Conservation Network
Legislative Analyst
[e-mail]
P: 919.857.4699 x 119
0
1

D-33
NC Conservation Network • Southern Environmental Law Center •
Waterkeeper Alliance
October 16, 2020
Commissioner Steve Keen
NC Environmental Management Commission
217 West Jones St.
1617 Mail Services Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Sent via email
Re: Comments on Proposed 15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .070o and .1300 (except .0531-
.0547) Transfer, Storage, and Disposal Facility Rules
Dear Hearing Officer Keen,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule changes to the
Solid Waste Management Rules. The North Carolina Conservation Network, Southern
Environmental Law Center, and Waterkeeper Alliance are organizations that advocate
for a just and sustainable future for North Carolina. Supporters of all three
organizations live in communities across the state, many in proximity to sites that will
be regulated by the proposed rules.
We support the proposed improvements to the leachate management plans for new
permits. Nonetheless, the package needs additional changes to ensure that permits
issued under these rules will genuinely protect communities and comply with state law.
We urge the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission to revise the
proposed rules to ensure that facility permits comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and also take account of increasingly intense weather events. This will protect
the prosperity of communities, the integrity of the permitting process, and protect
public health and safety. We stand in support of communities who desire to maintain a
healthy environment where they live and work.
i. The ruleset needs amendments to achieve environmental justice.
Both federal and state law requires that North Carolina's solid waste rules prevent
discriminatory distribution of the impacts of waste facilities. Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act protects Americans from discrimination. Title VI protection was a concern at the
heart of debates of North Carolina's general NPDES permit for swine facilities. The lack
of explicit protections in the permitting process for vulnerable southeastern North
Carolina communities left those residents without equal protection from environmental
threats. This inequity led the EPA to express "deep concerns about the possibility that
African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans have been subjected to

D-34
discrimination..."" in North Carolina. Going forward, the NC Department of
Environmental Quality ("NCDEQ") agreed to be "committed to ensuring compliance
with Title VI and EPA implementing regulations by evaluating whether policies and
programs have a disparate impact on the basis of race"2 and to "increase awareness of
environmental conditions among communities of color [as well as] low-income.. [and]
indigenous communities... among industry and permitted entities.""
In state solid waste law, NCGS §13oA-294(a)(4c) (9) requires that the Division of Waste
Management deny a permit to a facility that will disproportionately impact a minority or
low-income community. Without a structure for assessing cumulative impact and
community demographics spelled out in the rule, the agency has no way to demonstrate
compliance with the statutory requirement. Without clearly demonstrated statutory
compliance, communities across North Carolina are being put at risk by the
Department. Additionally, maintaining permitting processes without Title VI
assessments increase the chance that any given permit can be contested and litigated for
undetermined periods of time, increasing uncertainty and cost for local communities
and regulated parties alike. Considering this threat, the Department should build clear
regulatory parameters to implement the statutory mandate of N.C.G.S. §13oA-
294(a)(4)(c) (9). Those clear parameters by which communities should be considered
include, but are not limited to: relevant impacts of a TSD facility, a Title VI assessment,
and a definitive threshold of considerations for disproportionate adverse impacts.
North Carolina has a history of locating solid waste facilities in communities of color
and low-income areas.3 Municipal Solid Waste ("MSW"), Construction and Demolition
("C&D"), and hazardous waste landfills are additional environmental burdens on
communities already struggling economically. Previous research has shown that
landfills can decrease the value of homes within 2 miles of a solid waste facility by up to
12 % and prices can be depressed for up to 6.2 miles from landfill sites.4 Incinerators,
additionally, had the most negative impact on local home prices during construction and
operation as well.5
Since pollution from landfills can be toxic, there is an increased risk of leachate carrying
toxic chemicals into nearby soil and groundwater.6 Leachate releases should be very
'Ross, William. "Re: Letter of Concern." USEPA, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
12 Jan. 2017, blogs.law.une.edu/documents/civilrights/epalettertodegoll2l7.pdf.
2 NCDEQ. "Title VI: Increasing Equity, Transparency, and Environmental Protection in the Permitting of
Swine Operations in North Carolina." NCDEQ, NCDEQ, 4 May 2020,
files.nc.gov/ncdeq/ EJ/AttachA-Settlement-Agreement-NCDEQ-Citizen-groups.pdf.
'Norton, Jennifer, et al. "Race, Wealth, and Solid Waste Facilities in North Carolina." Environmental
Health Perspectives, 1 Sept. 2007, ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.lol6l.
4 Ho, Sa, and Diane Hite. "Economic Impact of Environmental Health Risks on House Values in Southeast
Region: A County -Level Analysis." Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology,
Auburn University, Aug. 2004, econpapers.repec.org/paper/agsaaea04/19921.htm.
s Norton, Jennifer, et al.
6 Environmental Working Group. "PFAS Contamination in the United States." Environmental Working
Group, Environmental Working Group, 16 July 2020, www.ewg.org/interactive-
maps/pfas_contamination/map/.

D-35
concerning given recent statewide PFAS pollution.? Toxic releases from chemicals like
PFAS, that can be found in landfill leachate, have already compromised numerous water
and soil resources. In the Southeast, a study revealed nearby homes lost value as toxic
discharges increased and gained value as they decreased.$ Depressed home values due to
increased environmental hazards by waste management sites discourage economic
development in the area and risk thriving communities.
More disturbingly, a 2011 study found that home values were particularly impacted if
local water resources were compromised. Even after pollution cleanup had concluded,
often home values in the previously afflicted areas did not recover.9 Whether closed or
open, landfills depress the economic prosperity of the local area. Landfills depress the
economic potential of these areas by inflicting long-term losses, require local
municipalities to monitor the sites in the communities continuously, and present a
perpetual environmental health hazard.
Requested Action
As previously mentioned, federal and state statutes prevent discrimination against
communities protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To be able to show
that the Department has followed statutory mandates to consider disparate adverse
impacts on communities of color in the solid waste permitting process, the ruleset must:
• Require a full analysis of the disparate and cumulative impacts of a project on the
local community where the permitting decision is being considered.
• Make permit approval conditioned upon the elimination or mitigation of
cumulative impacts.
• Forecast permit denials where conditions cannot address the disparate impacts.
• Provide clarity to applicants where Transfer, Storage, and Disposal ("TSD")
facilities should not be located due to existing cumulative impacts in certain
communities.
• Provide meaningful engagement opportunities for traditionally disenfranchised
communities along with multilingual presentations.
• Ensure that facilities that can have cross -divisional permitting impact, like
incinerators, have a single analysis of cumulative impact.
NCDEQ DWM. "Waste Management Work on Emerging Compounds." NCDEQ, NCDEQ,
deq. nc.gov/news/key-issues/emerging-compounds/waste-management-work-emerging-
compounds.
$ Ho, Sa, and Diane Hite. 2004. (lost value); Ho, Chau-Sa, and Diane Hite. "Economic Impact of
Environmental Health Risks on House Values in Southeast Region: A County -Level Analysis."
Semantic Scholar, Ohio State University -Center for Human Resource Research and Auburn
University -Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Oct. 2005,
papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=839211. (gained value)
9 Braden, John, et al. "Waste Sites and Property Values: A Meta -Analysis." Environmental Resource
Economics, vol. 50,15 Mar. 2011, pp. 175-201., doi:1o.1oo7/s1o640-011-9467-9-

D-36
• Require that all previously permitted facilities comply with the updated siting
requirements in section .0403 in the proposed rule set when their permits are up
for renewal.
These are all ways that DEQ can take constructive steps to support its words of giving
"particular attention to marginalized communities due to socio-economic status, race,
ethnicity, and language usage, using procedures that provide for early identification and
integration of public concerns into permitting decisions."10
2. The ruleset needs amendments to address the ongoing impact of climate
change.
With warmer temperatures year round, North Carolina has begun experiencing more
extreme precipitation events accompanied by intense flooding. Additionally, sea level is
rising approximately two times faster on the northeastern coast of the State in
comparison to the southeastern coast." Increased sea levels mean increased chance of
water intrusion where it may not have been before and place both active and inactive
landfill sites in flood zones that may not have previously existed or been high risk.
Moreover, the increased water will push leachate management systems to the limit as
the years progress, possibly rendering some leachate systems inadequate.
A United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) October 2oig report hints at
the new dangers of a changing climate, noting that up to 6o% of Superfund sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL) are expected to be endangered by effects of climate
change.12 With the financial burden of climate change and existing landfill sites, it is
even more important that low-income and minority communities are considered in the
permitting and management of solid waste facilities. When these increasingly more
common natural disasters or extreme events occur, it is these communities that struggle
more than others to recover.13
North Carolina does have records of unpermitted leachate spills in previous years. With
more extreme weather, solid waste facilities could find it harder to manage leachate
to Regan, Michael. "Closure of Administrative Complaint." USEPA, NCDEQ, 7 May 2o18,
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 2018-05/documents/2ol8-5-
7_ncdeq_reach_ Closure_letter_per_adr_agreement_iir-14-r4_recipien.pdf.
11 Rita Cliffton and Cathleen Kelly. "Building a Just Climate Future for North Carolina." Center for
American Progress, 9 Sept. 2020,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/ 2020/09/09/490114/building-just-climate-
future-north-carolina/.
lz United State Government Accountability Office: Report to Congressional Requesters. "Superfund EPA
Should Take Additional Actions to Manage Risks from Climate Change." United State Government
Accountability Office, United State Government Accountability Office, Oct. 2019,
www.gao.gov/assets/710/702158.pdf.
is Milligan, Susan. "Hurricanes Hit Everyone, But the Poor Have the Hardest Time Recovering." U.S.
News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 21 Sept. 2018, www.usnews.com/news/the-
report/articles/2o18-o9-21/hurricanes-hit-everyone-but-the-poor-have-the-hardest-time-
recovering.

D-37
effectively.14 The May 202o NC Climate Science Report expects the upward trend in
precipitation to continue in North Carolina: it is "very likely that extreme precipitation
frequency and intensity in North Carolina will increase due to higher atmospheric water
vapor content."15 This expectation aligns with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's ("NOAA's") 2019 report expecting a 27% increase in the volume of the
99th percentile range, or the top 1%, of precipitation events across the Southeast
region.i6 A leachate collection system designed to hold and manage the rainfall events of
the past could regularly fail in the future.
In North Carolina statute, G.S. 13oA-294(b) requires the EMC "[to] enforce rules to
implement a comprehensive statewide solid waste management program. The rules
shall be consistent with applicable State and federal law; and shall be designed to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare; preserve the environment; and provide for
the greatest possible conservation of cultural and natural resources." This statute
implies that landfills should be required to increase precautions in light of changing
environmental factors to protect North Carolina communities. The expected climatic
changes require stronger leachate management plans for all permitted solid waste
facilities to protect local communities from leachate overflow events.
Requested Action
In the context of existing North Carolina statutes, the EMC should consider climate
change and its impact on the resilience of landfills moving forward. Recommended
actions include:
• Requiring all landfills to improve leachate management plans to satisfy the new
leachate standards in this rule set.
• Prioritizing scrutiny of TSD sites that have previous leachate outbreaks.
• Assessing currently permitted landfills' changing flood zones in order to adjust
management plans for more intense flooding events.
• Prohibiting permitting for TSD sites in or within a certain distance of flood zone
areas, due to the increased intensity of precipitation and moving flood zone
boundaries across the Southeast.
• Requiring that all previously permitted facilities comply with the updated siting
requirements in section .0403 in the proposed rule set when their permits are up
for renewal.
14 NCDEQ. "Leachate Outbreaks on the NCDEQ Violations Record:" NCDEQ Laserfiche, NCDEQ, 2020,
www.ncconservationnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/lo/Record-of-Leachate-Outbreaks-
Found.pdf.
1s Kunkel, Kenneth, et al. "North Carolina Climate Science Report." North Carolina Institute for Climate
Studies, North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, May 2020, ncics.org/wp-
content/uploadS/202o/o6/NC Climate Science —Report FullReport Final revised_May202o.pd
f.
16 Scott, Michon. "Prepare for More Downpours: Heavy Rain Has Increased across Most of the United
States, and Is Likely to Increase Further: NOAA Climate.gov." NOAA Climate.gou, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,10 July 2019, www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-
images/prepare-more-downpours-heavy-rain-has-increased-across-most-united-o.

D-38
.q. Conclusion
NCDEQ and the EMC have a legal duty to protect permittees, traditionally
disenfranchised citizens, and the economic health of communities where the
Department approves permits for TSD facilities by complying with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and accounting for a changing climate future. With growing
uncertainty of the effect of climate change on the State, steps should be taken now to
upgrade currently permitted facilities and future sited facility standards to match the
projected future rainfall. More extreme storm events will increase the possibility of
leachate releases, water intrusion or flooding in new places, and closed facilities being
compromised by a changed environment.
Finally, supporting the promulgation of explicit Title VI regulations will grant
Departmental permits greater security from legal action while better documenting
cumulative impact. Better documented cumulative impacts will protect already
overburdened communities from additional pollution across the state. Additionally,
DEQ has tools like the Community Mapping Tool already launched that can help in the
effort to develop procedures for permittees and the Department, as well as locate zones
where additional siting of TSD facilities should no longer occur.
All these changes work to strengthen the permitting process for the Department and
permittees while limiting the additional burden on traditionally disenfranchised
communities.
Sincerely,
Alfre Wimberley
Legislative Analyst
North Carolina Conservation Network
Chandra Taylor
Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
Will Hendrick
Senior Attorney
Waterkeeper Alliance

M91
Montle, Jessica
From: [e-mail]
Sent: October 1, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Montie, Jessica
Cc: 'Mike Huff'; [e-mail]
Subject: [External] Comments submitted regarding EMC proposed rules .0100, .0200, and .0400 Rules
Attachments: NWRARules.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Ms. Montie please see our NC Legislative Committee, Carolinas Chapter, National Waste and Recycling Association's
attached comments for proposed Rules .0100, .0200 and .0400.
Best regards,
Phil Carter
NC Legislative Committee Chair
Carolinas Chapter
National Waste and Recycling Association

D-40
Association
Collect, Recycle, Innovate,"
Carolinas Chapter
September 28, 2020
Dear Jessica:
I am writing on behalf of the North Carolina Chapter of the National Waste & Recycling
Association (NWRA). NWRA is a trade association representing the private sector waste & recycling
industry. Our members include companies operating in the North Carolina. These companies play a
significant role in providing the infrastructure that allows for safe and effective management of waste
and recycling in the State of North Carolina.
Our comments are as follows:
15A NCAC 13B Section .0100 General Conditions
15A NCAC 13B .0101 (7) The definition of "Cell" appears to only apply to an area that has been
filled and completely covered. What term is used when the area has not been filled and covered?
15A NCAC 13B .0101 (15) The second sentence contains the word "may". Definitions need to be
clear and the use of the word "may" does not provide clarity.
15A NCAC 13B Section .0200 Permits for Solid Waste Management Facilities
15A NCAC 1313.0207 (c) (4) N.C.G.S.130A-294(a4) says that a life -of -site permit shall survive the
expiration of a local government approval or franchise and the landfill can operate until the term of the
life -of -site permit. With this statute, there is no need for local government approval for the life -of -site
and a copy of the agreement for the life -of -site should not be required to be submitted with the
application for a life -of -site permit from the Solid Waste Section

.MIS
15A NCAC 13B .Section .0400 Transfer Stations
15A NCAC 136.0401 (a)(2)(B) Would the addition or modification of a building, not related to waste
handling, on a transfer station site existing before the effective date of this rule, be subject to the new
siting requirements? For instance, would the addition of a shed to store scrap tires for collection trigger
the buffer requirements in 15A NCAC 13B .0403(a)(6)?
15A NCAC 13B .0401(b)(3) If a transfer station is dormant, is there a provision for conducting the
assessment, but delaying completion of the required items until such time as the owner or operator
desires to place the transfer station back in service?
15A NCAC 13B .0403 (b)(7) and 15A NCAC 13B .0405 (c) Conflict in these rules for existing facilities
that are exempt from .0403(b)(1). Rule .0401(a)(2) says that an existing facility is not required to comply
with Rule .0403(b)(1). Rule .0403(b)(1) says that a site has to be designed and construction so that all
solid waste ... storage occurs on an impervious surface. Because an existing facility does not have to be
designed and constructed such that storage occurs on an impervious surface, then the vehicles and
containers that contain solid waste should not be required to be staged within the perimeter of a
leachate collection system, as required in .0403(b)(7). A similar conflict exists in 15A NCAC 13B .0405 (c)
The proper resolution of this conflict is to add 15A NCAC 13B .0403 (b)(7) and 15A NCAC 13B .0405 (c)
to the exemptions listed in rule 15A NCAC 13B .0401 (a)(2) (A) and (B).
15A NCAC 136.0404 (g)(3) Is there a requirement that the agencies listed in this rule provide a
written response within a specified period after a request for a letter has been made?
15A NCAC 13B .0405 (a)(2) This operational requirement implies that a groundwater and surface
water monitoring program is required, but there is no other reference to such a program for transfer
facilities. How would this requirement be monitored or enforced?
15A NCAC 13B .0405 (a)(9)(F) Because collection vehicles often collect from more than one
jurisdiction on a given route, it is impossible for the transfer station operator to determine if a given
material is from a jurisdiction that banned it for disposal. Enforcement of this provision is not possible by
the transfer station operator.

IMIN
Comment on Fiscal Note to 15A NCAC 13B .0400 Transfer Station Rules
"Costs and Benefits by Entity (1) Private Industry and Local Government -Owned Facilities"
"The Division estimates that each transfer station assessment and report submittal may cost the
owner or operator between $1,500 and $3,000 for each of the 96 active transfer stations, for a total cost
between $147,000 to $294,000 within six months of the effective date of the proposed rule. The
proposed rule does not directly require that the assessment be completed by a professional engineer, but
if G.S. 89C requires that any parts of the assessment report be completed by a professional engineer, this
could potentially increase the total cost for some of the reports by $250 to $1,000. However, the Division
expects that for approximately 75% of the 96 transfer stations, the assessment and report will be at the
lower end of that range, if not below the range, since they are for the most port already in compliance
with the proposed rules."
The cost for an engineer's assessment of a transfer station, many of which were built in the early
1990's, could vary greatly, depending on a variety of factors, and exceed the estimates provided in the
fiscal note. Age of the facility, whether the assessment is done as part of a larger engineering agreement
or as in independent engagement and the geographic location of the facility could increase the cost of
completing the assessment.
Phil Carter
Legislative Committee Chair
North Carolina Chapter
National Waste & Recycling Association

D-43
Montie, Jessica
From: Scott Greene <[e-mail]>
Sent: August 15, 2020 9:00 AM
To: SVC_dwm.publiccomments
Cc: greene, scott
Subject: [External] Solid Waste Rule Re -adoption
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Scott Greene and I am the Chairman of the NC Board for Licensed Soil Scientist. I would like
to provide a public comment on the Solid Waste Rule Readoption on behalf of our Board.
It appears that this rule readoption defines a soil scientist and a licensed soil scientist differently. This
should not be. Soil Science is regulated by 89F which states "Soil Scientist" means a person who practices
soil science. In North Carolina practicing soil science without a license is a misdemeanor.
89F-7 Exemptions.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person who practises or offers to practice soil
science in thai State is subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
(b) The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
(1) Persons engaged solely in teaching soil science or engaged solely in soil science research.
(2) Officers and employees of the United States, and units of local government who practice soil science
solely in the capacity of the office or employment.
(3) Officers and employees of companies engaged in the practice of soil science, when the officers and
employees practice soil science solely in the capacity of their employment and who do not
offer their services to the public for hire. (1995, c. 414, s. 1.)
§ 89F-19. Prohibitions; unlawful acts.
(a) It is unlawful for any person other than a licensed soil scientist or a subordinate, under the soil
scientist's direction to conduct or participate in any practice of soil science or\prepare any soil science
reports, maps, or documents related to the public welfare or the
safeguarding of life, health, property, or the environment.
§ 89F-22. Misdemeanors.
A person who does any of the following shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor:
(1) Willfully practices soil science or offers to practice soil science for any other person in this State
without being licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

D-44
The NC Board for Licensed Soil Scientist object the rule readoption, specifically we object to the definition
of soil scientist, for the aforementioned reasons. I am available to discuss this further if needed.
R. Scott Greene, Chairman
NC Board of Licensed Soil Scientists

D-45
Montie, Jessica
From: Larry Baldwin <[e-mail]>
Sent: September 4, 2020 4:18 PM
To: SVC_dwm.publiccomments
Subject: [External] CSSC Inc Public comments to proposed NCAC rules 15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .0700 and .1300
regarding NC solid waste standards
Attachments: CSSC Letter to NCDEM Solid Waste Rules Aug-2020.pdf
• xternal email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
MMMMEWnc. ov
To: Ms. Jessica Montie
NC division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Please find the attached formal public comments regarding proposed 15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .0700 and .1300
rules for solid waste, and enter them into consideration for review of these rules. These comments are being
submitted within the allocated time period of Aug 17, 2020 thru Oct 16, 2020.
Thank -you for your sincere considerations of these comments regarding these proposed rules. We will be
sending you a hard copy of these public comments by mail.
If you or your staff should have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Larry F. Baldwin, CPSS / NCLSS
Consulting Soil Scientists of the Carolinas, Inc.
[phone] LBaldwin(@ec.rr.com

.aiy
CONSULTING SOIL SCIENTISTS of the CAROLINAS, Inc.
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, STE #15, Wilmington, NC 28403
September 3, 2020
Jessica Montie
NC Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
dwm.publiccomments0_ncdenr.gov
919-707-8247
Re: "Solid Waste Rule Readoption"
15A NCAC 13B .0100 - .0700, and .1300
The Consulting Soil Scientists of the Carolinas, Inc (CSSC) a 501-c-6 organization is submitting the
following public comments and concerns for proposed NC administrative rules 15A NCAC 13B .0100 -
.0700, and .1300 regarding NCDEQ solid waste standards and regulations:
15A NCAC 13B .0101 DEFINITIONS
(37) The CSSC fully agrees the definition of "Licensed soil scientist" is accurate and as regulated
under NC General Statute (NCGS) 89F by the NC Board for Licensing of Soil Scientists (NCBLSS).
(56) As proposed, the definition of "Soil" is not accurate as defined and creates a conflict with NCGS
89F. The definition as cited under NCGS 89F-3-6 should be used (i.e.)
"(6)"Soil" means the site or environmental setting consisting of soil material, saprolite, weathered
materials, and soil rock interface. "Soil" includes the solid materials, waters, gases, and other
biological, chemical, and contaminant materials in the soil environment."
(57) As proposed, there is a separate re -definition of "Soil scientist" which creates a direct conflict
with established NCGS 89-F regulated by the NCBLSS. This generalized definition of "Soil
scientist" within the proposed rules should be removed. Please refer to NCGS 89-F-3 3, 4, 8;
89F-10; 89F-19.
(51) As proposed, the new definition of "Seasonal high groundwater table" or "SHGT" is arbitrary,
not recognized by the scientific community, and creates confusion as to whether the rules refer to
a perched water table, apparent water table, unconfined aquifer, confined aquifer, etc. The depth
to seasonal high soil saturation is a critical parameter within the current or proposed solid
waste rules as to proper siting requirements. The guiding NCGS 130A-290... refers to "seasonal
high water table", and also has a definitive meaning within the established scientific community as
follows: (i.e.)
---"Seasonal High Saturation (SHS) formerly termed seasonal high water table (SHWT) is characterized by
zero or positive pressure in the soil -water, long enough to produce anaerobic conditions. The resulting
anaerbiosis promotes biogeochemical processes such as the reduction, tranlocation, and accumulation of
iron and other elements forming redoximorphic indicators."

D-47
---"A seasonal high saturation is the highest level to a zone of saturation in the soil that occurs in most years.
A seasonal high saturation normally persists for several weeks, normally occurring during the time of year
when the most rain falls. "
---A soil wetness condition shall be determined by the indication of colors of chroma 2 or less (Munsell Color
Charts) at >_2% of soil volume in mottles or matrix of a horizon or horizon subdivision. However, colors of
chroma 2 or less which are relic from minerals of the parent material shall not be considered indicative of a
soil wetness condition.
---The soil wetness condition shall be determined as the highest level predicted by the model to be saturated
for a 14-day continuous period between January 1 and April 30 with a recurrence frequency of 30 percent
(an average of at least 9 years in 30).
(69) As proposed, there is another separate definition of "Water table and Groundwater table" which
is arbitrary, and creates confusion as to whether the rules refer to a perched water table, apparent
water table, unconfined aquifer, confined aquifer, etc. The depth to seasonal high soil saturation
is a critical parameter within the current or proposed solid waste rules as to proper siting
requirements. The guiding NCGS 130A-290... refers to "seasonal high water table". This proposed
definition needs to be clear in meaning and in context with other definitions of the proposed rules,
or removed altogether.
15A NCAC 13B .0202 PERMIT APPLICATION
(a) (3) This proposed rule should directly reference and include licensed soil scientists to conduct and
certify, site and soil studies, if required by NCGS 89F. Licensed soil scientists are currently omitted
and should be encompassed within this proposed rule. The term "soil" is referenced many times
within the proposed rules as to evaluations for site usability, testing, and specifications.
15A NCAC 13B .0203 PERMIT APPROVAL OR DENIAL
(e) (4) NCGS 89F regarding licensed soil scientist should be made a part of this rule. As proposed within
this rule 89F licensed soil scientists are omitted.
5A NCAC 13B .0208 PERMIT EXEMPTIONS
(b) (3) (D) and (E) These two rules state governmental web site maps may be utilized for determining
areas of jurisdictional wetlands or floodways. These governmental maps are quite
general and often inaccurate. These web based maps should not be used as a
basis for determining jurisdictional wetlands or floodways.
(b) (5) The term "white goods" needs to be defined as to its' meaning and what it specifically
encompasses.
15A NCAC 13B .0503 SITING AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
(b) (4) (B) The proposed rule states the flexible membrane liner shall be upper 30 mil thick or lower
60 mil thick. Is this correct? In reading the NCGS it should be 30 or 60 one -thousandths
of an inch thick for the flexible membrane liner.
15A NCAC 13B .0504 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SANITARY LANDFILLS. INDUSTRIAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
(c) (3) This rule should include, "and soil" study of the site.......
(c) (3) (A) (iv) This rule should include, "and soil" considerations..
(c) (3) (A) (v) This rule should include, "and soil" samples........
(c) (3) (A) (vii) This rule should include, "or hydromorphological" units.....

D-48
(c) (3) (A) (viii) This rule should include, ....; and "estimation of seasonal high water table depth by
modeling or redoximorphic soil wetness indicators".....
(c) (3) (C) This rule should include, .....; and "estimated seasonal high water table depth by modeling
or redoximorphic soil wetness indicators".....
(c) (3) (D) This rule should include,...."or soils" evaluation.....
(c) (8) (E) This rule should include, ...a more detailed geologic "or soils" report....
(d) (1) This rule should include,.... pertinent geological "or soil" features.....
(d) (6) This rule should include,... groundwater elevation, "estimated seasonal high water table
elevation by modeling or redoximorphic soil wetness indicators", and.....
(g) This rule should include.... If required by G.S. 89C, 89E, or "89F" and....... licensed
professional engineer, licensed geologist, "or licensed soil scientist" shall certify....
15A NCAC 13B .0505 OPERATIONAL AND CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL SOLID
WASTE LANDFILLS SANITARY LANDFILLS
(a) (2) (A) Term needs to be changed..... "prevent &M mineral soil or sediment from leaving the site."
15A NCAC 13B .0565 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LCIDLFS LAND CLEARING/INERT
DEBRIS (LCID) LANDFILLS
(b) This rule should include .... If required by G.S. 89C, 89E, or "89F" and....... licensed
professional engineer, licensed geologist, "or licensed soil scientist" shall certify....
15A NCAC 13B .0566 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LCIDLFS REQ. FOR IAND
C EARINGIINERT DEBRIS ( CID) LANDFILLS
i c
(5) Term needs to be changed..... "prevent -&k mineral soil or sediment from leaving the site."
These comments are being submitted within the allocated public comment time period of August 17 thru
October 16, 2020.
Please feel free to contact us if you should have any questions or need more information. Thank -you for
your consideration of these germane and critical inputs to the proposed rules.
Lawrence F. Baldwin, NCLSS; CPSS
Consulting Soil Scientists of the Carolinas, Inc, Director
LBaldwin(@ec.rr.com [phone] [m]

D-49
Montle, Jessica
From: Keith Larick <[e-mail]>
Sent: October 16, 2020 2:03 PM
To: SVC_dwm.publiccomments
Subject: [External] Solid Waste Rule Readoption
Attachments: NCFB Solid Waste Comments Final 10-16-2020.pdf
�Mwwrna I email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Please see the attached comments from the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation for the Solid Waste Rules
Readoption.
Thanks,
Keith Larick
Keith Larick
Natural Resources Director
North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation
Phone: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
www.ncfb.org

NORTH CAROLINA D-50
• e FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, INC.
PO Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] www.ncfb.org
October 16, 2020
Ms. Jessica Montie Submitted via email: dwm.pub] iccomments..ci.ncdenr.gov
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Re: Solid Waste Rule Readoption
Dear Ms. Montie,
The North Carolina Farm Bureau (NCFB) is North Carolina's largest general farm organization,
representing the interests of farm and rural people in our State. This letter is to comment on
the proposed readoption of rules for the management of solid waste (15A NCAC 13B .0501-
.0505, .0508-.0510, .0562-.0567, .0601, and .0602). Thank you for the opportunity to provide
these comments.
The practice of beneficial fill has many uses in agriculture. Soil can be used to fill in low spots of
a field to make the field usable, or to improve production. In addition, fill can be needed to
repair washouts of fields and farm roads due to hurricanes or other severe storms.
NCFB supports the statement in proposed rule 15A NCAC 13B .0562(c) that states, "Soil
generated from properties where there has been no known release of contaminants shall not
be subject to regulation as a solid waste." For additional clarity, we feel that this item should be
expanded to make it clear that sites accepting this soil are not required to obtain a solid waste
management permit. NCFB also supports the new definition of "inert debris waste" in 15A
NCAC 13B .0101, as it excludes soil from the definition. We agree that uncontaminated soil is
not a solid waste, and we support this regulatory conclusion.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have questions or would like
to discuss, please contact me at [e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
Keith Larick
Natural Resources Director
Farm Bureau and Agriculture...
We keep North Carolina growing!

M&I
Montle, Jessica
From: Keith Larick <[e-mail]>
Sent: October 14, 2020 8:49 AM
To: SVC_dwm.publiccomments
Subject: [External] Solid Waste Rule Readoption
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail] J
Please accept the comments below from Scott Atwell of Iredell County for the readoption of Solid Waste Management
rules, specifically the rules related to LDCls and beneficial fill. NC Farm Bureau will be filing separate comments as well.
Thanks,
Keith Larick
Keith Larick
Natural Resources Director
North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation
Phone: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
www.ncfb.org
From: Scott Atwell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 10:55 AM
To: Keith Larick <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: IMPORTANT: Rules changes for LCID Landfills
I really don't see why the current rules need to be changed to exclude 2 acre sites for land clearing ! I think they are
taking comments about it but not sure how to reply or if it is worth the time. I think the under2 acre sites are needed
for farmers like my situation. It would take long time to find enough beneficial fill to make land usable for farming. The
one year rule would not be practical because you have to find places that want to get rid of the fill material and can't
work out timing for hauling in all situations ! The cost and time to get approved under new rules would make it almost
impossible ? Least not practical ! I'm not aware on any permit requirements now for fill dirt or what they will call inert
debris waste ? I think farmers need to take advantage of opportunities to improve farm land without bunch of red tape
when they come available. Usually, from past experience, contractors are ready to move materials right away when
farmers find out so long permitting process would limit opportunities in my opinion. What I see happen is folks dump in
places and hope they don't get caught ! Make it hard for ones that try to do it right.
From: Scott Atwell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Keith Larick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: Rules changes for LCID Landfills
Sent from my iPhone