13B_.0531-.0547.1600_HearingOfficersReport

M
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF
PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PERIOD
Readoption and Amendments to
15A NCAC 13B .0531 - .0547 and Section .1600 (except .0546 and .1628)
Requirements for Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills
and Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Environmental Management Commission
July 9, 2020

D-2
Basic Information
Commission: Environmental Management Commission
Groundwater and Waste Management Committee
Agency Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management,
Solid Waste Section
Title Financial Assurance Requirements for Solid Waste Management Facilities
Citations 15A NCAC 13B .0531 - .0547 and Section .1600 (except .0546 and .1628)
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. Existing rules adopted under the authority of 130A-294
which establish standards for construction and demolition debris landfills and
municipal solid waste landfills are found in Subchapter 13B Rules .0531 -
.0547 and Section .1600, respectively. Rules .0546 and .1628 regarding
financial assurance requirements were addressed in a separate hearing
officer's report.
Agency Contact Jessica Montie
Environmental Program Consultant
[e-mail]
[phone]
Authority G.S. 130A-294; G.S. 15013-21.3A
Statement of Necessity Rules .0531 - .0545 and .1601 - .1627, .1629 - .1637, and .1680 are
proposed for readoption in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.3A.
Hearing Officer EMC Commissioner John McAdams
Comment Period February 17, 2020 to April 17, 2020
Public Hearing March 3, 2020
Comment Summary One comment was received on the proposed rules at the public hearing
thanking the Division for their collaboration and stating that written comments
would be submitted at a later date. Written comments were received from
seven 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 which establish requirements for construction
and demolition debris landfills (C&DLFs) and municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) are found in
Subchapter 13B, Rules .0531 - .0547 and .1601 - .1680, respectively.
Rules .0531 — 0545 and .1601 - .1680 (except .0546 and .1628) are proposed for readoption in
accordance with G.S. 15013-21.3A. 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 .0546 and .1628 were readopted as part of a separate rule package for financial
assurance, 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. 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).
The North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management approved the Fiscal Note for these rules
on January 7, 2020, and the analysis 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 Fiscal Note were approved by the EMC to proceed to public comment and
hearing at the January 9, 2020 EMC meeting, and Commissioner John McAdams 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 Regulatory Impact
Analysis were published on the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) website throughout the
public comment period from February 17, 2020 through April 17, 2020. The Notice of Text as published
in the NC Register (Volume 34 Issue 16, page 1470) can be viewed at the following website address:
httos://files.nc.aov/ncoah/documents/files/Volume-34-Issue-16-Februarv-17-2020.Ddf.
The Division also sent a link to the published notice and fiscal note 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 February 14, 2020.
Public Hearing
The public hearing took place on March 3, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. at 217 West Jones Street, Raleigh.
Commissioner John McAdams served as the hearing officer for the public hearing. The hearing for this
rule set was combined with the hearing for 15A NCAC 13B Rules .0546, .1105, .1111, .1628, and .1801
- .1806 pertaining to financial assurance requirements for C&DLFs, scrap tire sites, MSWLFs, and all
other solid waste management facilities permitted under Subchapter 13B. The hearing attendance
sheet and transcript can be found in Appendix 3. The hearing was attended by multiple stakeholders
in the regulated community, including those representing the North Carolina chapters of the Solid Waste
Association of North America (SWANA) and the National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA).

D-4
One comment was provided at the hearing by Mr. Joe Hack with Mecklenburg County on behalf of NC
SWANA, thanking staff for their collaboration on the draft rule changes and indicating that written
comments would be submitted at a later date.
Written Comments
Written comments were received from the following interested parties during the comment period:
On behalf of the following associations or organizations:
Solid Waste Association of North America - North Carolina Chapter (NC SWANA)
National Waste & Recycling Association - North Carolina Chapter (NC NWRA)
NC Conservation Network
From the following landfill permit holders:
US Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Iredell County Solid Waste
Coble's Sandrock C&D Landfill
From the following individuals:
Cama Merritt
Maddie German, P.G.
The comment letters 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. 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 Attachments A and B as provided on the July 9, 2020 EMC meeting agenda.
General Response Regarding Compliance with the APA, General Statutes, and Federal Regulations
Solid waste management facilities are required to comply with Chapters 113A, 130A, and 143 of the
North Carolina General Statutes and the rules adopted thereunder, in addition to the rules in 15A NCAC
13B. The general statutes are applicable to solid waste management facilities regardless of whether
they are mentioned or referred to in the rule language, so no reference needs to be included in the rule
text for the statute to apply. Where the Division has elected to add such references, this was done only
for ease of review or clarification. If a general statute is not referred to in the rules or permit conditions,
that does not mean that the facility does not have to comply with the statute. Also, general statute
language takes precedence over the rule language wherever there is conflict between the two, and if
there is a conflict, the rule language will need to be corrected so that it does not contradict the statute
language.
G.S. 150B, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), specifically G.S. 150B-19(4) states in part: "An
agency may not adopt a rule that does one or more of the following: (4) Repeats the content of a law,
a rule, or a federal regulation. A brief statement that informs the public of a requirement imposed by law
does not violate this subdivision and satisfies the "reasonably necessary" standard of review set in G.S.
150B-21.9(a)(3)."
Municipal solid waste landfills and the rules in Section .1600 are required to be consistent with and no
less restrictive than the federal requirements in 40 CFR 257 and 258 for the Division to be able to retain
state permitting program approval from the US EPA. The EMC is not able to amend a Rule in Section
.1600 that may make the rule inconsistent with or less restrictive than 40 CFR 257 and 258. However,
G.S. 130A-294(e) states that rules adopted under G.S. 130A-294 may incorporate standards and
restrictions which exceed and are more comprehensive than comparable federal regulations.

Iml
The Division would also like to provide clarification on a matter that seems to be a point of confusion or
misinterpretation, which is the fact that construction and demolition debris landfill units (C&DLFs) are
sanitary landfills. C&DLFs are sanitary landfills because they meet the definition of a sanitary landfill in
G.S. 130A-290, and are not exempted from this definition or from the requirements for sanitary landfills
anywhere in Chapter 130A or 15A NCAC 13B. Additional clarification can be found in G.S. 130A-295.6
"Additional requirements for sanitary landfills", paragraph (e) which states in part, "A sanitary landfill for
the disposal of construction and demolition debris waste shall be constructed with a liner system..."
G.S. 130A-295.60) does exempt land clearing and inert debris landfills from these additional
requirements for sanitary landfills, which indicates that the statutes do not consider a land clearing and
inert debris landfill to be a sanitary landfill, but construction and demolition debris landfills are clearly
not exempt from sanitary landfill requirements.
Response to Comments Regarding Timeline of Adoption for Definitions
The following two comments were submitted by NWRA expressing concern with the fact that these
rules are proposed to be adopted prior to the adoption of Rule .0101, which contains definitions that
apply to all of Subchapter 13B.
Comment on the C&D Landfill Rules
"As published, many definitions would be repealed and replaced by definitions in 15A NCAC
13B .0101 of the Subchapter. But, 15A NCAC 13B .0101 has not yet been submitted to the
Environmental Management Commission for consideration. As a result, there is great potential
for confusion or misunderstanding during the proposed gap between adoption of this rule and
the replacement definitions."
Comment on the MSW Landfill Rules
"These rules should not be adopted until the definitions in Rule .0101 of this Subchapter have
been adopted. If these rules are adopted without the accompanying definitions, there is a
likelihood of confusion and misinterpretation. The Environmental Management Commission
should delay the adoption of these rules until such time as Subchapter .0100 can be
simultaneously adopted."
Division Response
Rule .0101 is also required to be readopted by the EMC in accordance with G.S. 130A-21.3A by the
deadline of April 30, 2021; and is being considered by the EMC to be published for public comment at
this meeting.
To address the concern that there will be a gap in time between the effective date of these rules and
the effective date of Rule .0101, the Division has revised the requested effective date in the history note
for these rules to be January 1, 2021 to coincide with the expected effective date of Rule .0101. The
RRC, after approval at their next meeting, would then not add these rule changes to the administrative
code and make them effective until January 1, 2021.
To address the concern regarding definitions that are being moved from Rules .0532 and .1602 to Rule
.0101, the Division compared the existing definitions and proposed amendments in Rules .0101, .0532,
and .1602, and determined that only the following definitions are proposed to be moved from Rules
.0532 and .1602 to Rule .0101 during readoption:
• "Hazardous waste" — this term is defined in G.S. 130A-290(8). The definition being moved provides
only the statute reference and some additional information that refers to the rules in Subchapter
13A. Losing these references from Rules .0532 and .1602 does not leave the term undefined, and
the definition is not changing.

193y
"Industrial solid waste" — this term is defined in G.S. 130A-290(13b). The definition being moved
provides only the statute reference and some examples of the types of waste that fall under this
category. Losing the reference from Rules .0532 and .1602 does not leave the term undefined, and
the definition is not changing.
"Licensed geologist," "professional engineer," and "registered (professional) land surveyor": These
terms are defined in G.S. 89C and 89E. Both the existing rule definitions in Rule .0532 and the
proposed definitions in Rule .0101 just refer to those statutes or copy the language in them. Also,
every place in the proposed rules where these terms are used have been updated to use the terms
as defined in G.S. 89C and 89E and to add a reference to those statutes directly. Therefore, these
definitions are unnecessary and are only being retained in Rule .0101 for ease of reference.
To address the concern that some of the changes to the definitions in Rule .0101 may impact the MSW
and C&D Landfill rules, the Division also reviewed the definitions in proposed Rule .0101 as presented
to the EMC at this meeting that are proposed to be revised or added, and that may appear to have the
potential to impact or change requirements in the MSW and C&D Landfill rules. The following summary
explains why these revised definitions in proposed Rule .0101 will not affect the MSW and C&D Landfill
rules.
"Explosive gas" - Explosive gas is defined in existing Rule .0101 as methane. The proposed
definition states what an explosive gas means; provides examples "such as methane and hydrogen
sulfide," and clarifies that the term only means explosive gases in landfill gas.
o The revision to the explosive gas definition will make the definition consistent with the changes
that were made to Rules .0544(d) and .1626(4), which added the allowance for the Division to
add monitoring of other explosive gases such as hydrogen sulfide, in addition to the required
routine monitoring for methane, if there is reason to believe the other gases are being generated
in amounts that may exceed the lower explosive limit of those gases. Note that the routine
quarterly monitoring requirements in Rules .0544(d) and .1626(4) have not changed, and still
state that routine monitoring is required for methane only.
o The changes to explosive gas requirements in Rules .0544(d) and .1626(4), including the
addition of other explosive gases such as hydrogen sulfide, was discussed in detail in the fiscal
note for the MSW and C&D rules beginning on Page 20 of Attachment C, as published for public
comment.
o The Division received comments during the comment period for the C&D and MSW Landfill rules
addressing the change to explosive gas requirements and the allowance to require monitoring
for other explosive gases in addition to methane, and the Division has responded to those
comments in the Hearing Officer's report in Attachment D.
"C&D solid waste" — this definition is only being copied here from Rule .0532 so that if the term is
used in rules other than Rules .0531 - .0546, it will have a definition. The definition is identical to the
one in Rule .0532; and is not being removed from Rule .0532.
"Construction and demolition debris landfill" — this definition is also just being added to Rule .0101
so that if the term is used in rules other than Rules .0531-.0546, it will have a meaning. The definition
only points to Rules .0531-.0546. The term is not directly used in Rules .0531 - .0546 because
these rules use the term "C&DLF unit" when discussing the landfill, and that definition is being added
in this rule package to Rule .0532 to have the same meaning as "MSWLF unit", except it includes
C&D solid waste only.
• "Leachate" - The definition for leachate was removed from Rule .1602 and is also proposed to be
removed from Rule .0101 because the term is defined in G.S. 130A-290(16a), and the Division has
no need to add or clarify anything from the statute definition.

[DIVA
• "Landfill gas" — this term is proposed to be added only for clarification of the proposed definition of
explosive gas, so that requirements only apply to gas generated from the decomposition of solid
waste in a landfill. As discussed in the summary for "explosive gas" above, the changes to the
explosive gas requirements were already addressed and commented on during the public comment
period for these rules.
• "Municipal solid waste landfill" - this definition is also just being added to Rule .0101 so that if the
term is used in rules other than Section .1600, it will have a meaning. The definition only points to
Section .1600. The term is not directly used in Section .1600 because these rules use the term
"MSWLF unit" when discussing the landfill, and the definition of that term remains in Rule .1602.
"One hundred year flood", "floodplain" and other versions thereof are revised to refer to the statutory
definitions in G.S 143-215.52(a)(1 a) and (1 b) for reference, but the statute definitions are already
directly applicable to these rules since G.S. 143-215.54 refers to 100-year floodplain requirements
for solid waste disposal facilities directly, and G.S. 130A-295.6 for sanitary landfills refers to G.S.
143-215.54 directly. Also, the referenced statute definition has the same meaning as the terms as
defined in existing Rule .0532 for C&D Landfills and in 40 CFR 258 for MSW landfills, so the
reference does not change the requirements.
• "Open burning" - the definition for open burning is unnecessary in Rules .0532 and .1602 because
they are duplicates of the definition in existing Rule .0101 and in Air Quality Rule 15A NCAC 02D
.1902, which also applies regardless of the definitions in Subchapter 13B. The definition in Rule
.0101 is proposed for amendment to refer to the definition of the term in 15A NCAC 02D .1902 for
ease of reference.
"Sanitary landfill" is defined in G.S. 130A-290(31), and further discussed and clarified in G.S. 130A-
295.6 for additional requirements for sanitary landfills. The definition refers to the statute definition;
and refers to which Sections of rules in the Subchapter contain requirements for sanitary landfills
so that the applicability of existing Rule .0207 for life -of -site permits is clear. This definition does
not change the requirements for MSW and C&D landfills since the statutes already state that they
are sanitary landfills, and these rules were also updated as published for comment to refer to the
additional requirements for sanitary landfills in G.S. 130A-295.6; and to reflect the change to life -of -
site permits for sanitary landfills.
"Seasonal high groundwater table" is being included in Rules .0101, .0532, and .1602, and is the
same across the three rules. The Division may remove this definition at a later date from Rules
.0532 and .1602; but is currently retaining it in all three rules for clarification and ease of reference
since it was previously undefined.
Any other terms being removed from Rules .0101, .0532, and .1602 are being removed because they
are not necessary.
The amendments to the first lines of Rules .0101, .0532, and .1602 include a statement that all of the
definitions found in Article 9 of Chapter 130A of the General Statutes are applicable to Subchapter 13B.
The statement is unnecessary because the statute definitions apply regardless of whether the reference
is included; but the statement is proposed to be added for clarification and ease of reference because
this seemed to be a point of misunderstanding.

D-8
Summary
Written comments were received from eight interested parties including two trade associations, one
environmental group, 3 permit holders, and two individuals during the public comment period on 15A
NCAC 13B .0531 - .0547 and Section .1600 (not including Rules .0546 and .1628, which were
addressed under a separate hearing officer's report). One comment submitted at the public hearing on
behalf of NC SWANA thanked staff for their collaboration on the draft rules and indicated that written
comments would be submitted at a later date. The Division has made multiple changes to the rules as
a result of the comments received. Those changes are highlighted in Table 1 below, and in the rule text
in Attachments A and B as provided on the July 9, 2020 EMC meeting agenda.
The Division is requesting that the EMC adopt the C&D and MSW landfill rules at this time for the
following reasons:
The proposal to delay the effective date of the C&D and MSW Landfill rules to coincide with
the proposed effective date of Rule .0101 ensures that there will be no gap in time when the
landfill rules are effective before Rule .0101;
The summary provided above explains that the changes to definitions in Rules .0101, .0532,
and .1602 will not impact the interpretation or implementation of the C&D and MSW Landfill
rules; and
The timeline has not and will not prevent the concerns submitted in public comment from
being addressed prior to adoption.
Hearing Officer's Recommendation
The Hearing Officer recommends that the Environmental Management Commission repeal Rule .0547
and adopt 15A NCAC 13B Rules .0531 - .0545 and adopt Section .1600 (except Rule .1628), including
the highlighted changes made after the public comment period and the delayed effective date of January
1, 2021 as presented at the July 9, 2020 EMC meeting as Attachments A and B.

OIN
TABLE
Summary of Written Comments Received and Responses

IMU
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0533(c)(2)
Please accept these comments on behalf of the NC Solid Waste Association of North
As stated in G.S. 130A-309.203(a), this statute is applicable only to permits issued under Part 21 of Chapter 130A, which
America (NCSWANA). We have reviewed the proposed rules 15A NCAC 1313.0500 et.
means it applies only to permits issued for landfills for the exclusive disposal of coal combustion residuals after the
seq. and .1600 et. seq. and offer the following comments and questions for consideration.
effective date of Part 21, and is not applicable to permits issued in accordance with G.S. 130A-294 and 295.8 for all other
landfills. G.S. 130A-295.8(e) establishes the timelines and deadlines for the Department to review applications and issue
Is there a timeline for the NCDEQ to review draft permits? G.S. 130A-309.203 sets a strict
draft permits for solid waste management facilities (except for coal combustion residual landfills). Since the C&D and
timeframe for NCDEQ permit reviews. This statute should be incorporated by reference
MSW landfill rules state that the Division shall review permit applications in accordance with Rule .0203 of the
into the proposed rule, or the language from the statute should be added to the proposed
Subchapter, the Division has added to proposed Rule .0203 a reference to the timelines in G.S. 130A-295.8(e) for ease
rule for clarity.
of review only. Rule 0203 is also in the rule -making process for readoption, and is being presented to the EMC to request
to go to public comment at the July 2020 meeting.
.0533(c)(F)
Is the contact person in this proposed rule a Division representative?
Assuming this comment is in reference to Rule .0533(c)(3)(F), this Subparagraph contains requirements that the Division
must follow in preparing a fact sheet for a draft permit when a permit decision is subject to public participation. The
contact person is typically a representative of the Division.
.0533(c)(6)(A)
What are the guidelines for triggering a public hearing? How will requests for a public
The guidelines are as stated in the existing rule and remain unchanged. These guidelines apply only when public
hearing be managed in this regard? Are there limits to the number of public hearings that
participation is required: for a new landfill that has never been permitted, for additions to previously permitted waste or
can be held? Please clarify this process. The way it is written any party may request a
facility boundaries, and for substantial amendments (>10% increase) to service area, population to be served, or amount
hearing, the stricken language should be restored.
of waste to be disposed (capacity or tonnage). Any interested person may request a public hearing, they shall do so in
writing and state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing, and a public hearing will be held. An
alternative to this requirement would be to always require a public hearing on a draft permit, whether one is requested or
not, but the Division feels that this is generally not necessary if no one requests a hearing. Regarding the number of
public hearings, Rule .0533(c)(5) states in part, "any interested person may ... request a public hearing if no hearing has
already been scheduled." Therefore, the rule language only allows a hearing to be requested if one was not already
scheduled. Nothing in Rule .0533(c) requires that more than one hearing be held.
It is unclear which stricken language is mentioned in this comment, since the only stricken language in Rule
.0533(c)(6)(A) is the phrase "at its discretion". This sentence allows the Division to hold a public hearing, even if no one
requests a hearing. The phrase "at its discretion" was struck because it is redundant. The fact that the rule says "The
Division may..." instead of the "The Division shall..." means it is already at the Division's discretion. Returning the
stricken language makes no change to the requirement.
.0533(c)(6)(B)
Is there a time limit on how long NCDEQ can take to publish the end date of the extended
The Division has amended this Rule to state,
comment period?
"The Division shall publish the end date of the extended comment period on the Division's website prior to the end of the
existing public comment period.
.0534(b)(2)(J)
Is it NCDEQ's intent to inspect facilities without the owner's representative present? In the
The requirement in this Part has not been changed from the existing rule, therefore the Division does not intend to
interest of safety, routine inspections must be performed in the presence of a facility
enforce this rule in any way different than it has been enforced since the existing rule was effective in 2007. Under
employee.
existing rule, Division staff already conduct inspections in the presence of facility staff.
.0534(b)(2)(J)
In order to allow the owner the option to "split samples" the owner/operator would require
The Division is not required to split samples with the permittee. If the Division requests to split samples with the permittee,
advanced notice typically two business days of the NCDEQ's intent to samples in order to
as the Division regularly does under existing rule, neither the existing or proposed rule language prevents the Division
arrange for laboratory glassware and facility representative presence for split sampling to
from making arrangements with the permittee to split samples in a time frame agreed upon by the Division and the
occur. This notification should be added to this proposed language. Additionally, there
permittee. Since the added language providing for 24 hours -notice is not sufficient to meet the request to split samples,
should be language stating that NCDEQ will share results of split sampling with the
and the Division has also received comments requesting that the proposed language regarding notice be removed, the
owner/operator in a timely fashion upon receipt.
Division has amended Rule .0534(b)(2)(J) to remove the proposed language providing 24 hour -notice.
The Division has also amended Rule.0534(b)(2)(J) to add language providing notice for splitting samples from Rule
.1604(b)(2)(K) to state:
"The permittee shall split any required samples with the Department upon request by the Department. If the Department
requests that the permittee split samples with the Department, the permittee and the Department shall collect the
samples on a schedule that allows the permittee and the Department to obtain sample containers and equipment prior to
sampling."

ia`i
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0535(e)
This section should refer to a Post -Closure permit modification, rather than a new permit.
Because the proposed closure and post -closure care permit language was not included in Rule .0533(a)(1) for the
GS 130A-295.3 makes no provision for the Closure Permit. The information specified in
requirements for a "new permit" as defined in statute, it is not considered to be a "new permit." Also Rule .0533(a)(4)
this section is called for in the general statute for a permit modification, therefore we
makes no mention of the closure and post -closure permit being a new permit. This proposed permit is also not a permit
believe referring to this as a post -closure permit modification is more appropriate. Further
modification and should not be referred to that way because that would mean it is a continuation of the permit to operate,
discussion between the solid waste management industry and the NCDEQ is necessary to
and a permit to operate is required by statute to expire at the end of life -of -site, meaning (per statute) when the landfill
define what this submittal should include. Also, please clarify how this proposed language
reaches its highest permitted elevation or after 60 years, whereas a permit for closure and post -closure would be needed
would affect landfills previously closed under the .0500 rules?
to cover the post -closure care period of 30 years or more after the landfill reaches its highest permitted elevation and
closes, or beyond the 60-year life -of -site.
C&D landfills that did not receive waste after June 30, 2008 and were required to close and conduct post -closure care in
accordance with existing Rule .0510, their permit conditions, and any closure letter or closure permit that was issued to
the landfill at the time of closure are exempted from the requirements of Rules .0531 - .0546 by Rule .0531(b) (in existing
rule and proposed rule). Therefore, this proposed language does not apply to those landfills.
.0536(c)(1)(E)
After September 11, 2001 some of this information is no longer made public and therefore
Since a landfill cannot be constructed if no determination can be made on the distance to potable wells and public water
may not be available for submission. A provision regarding "if publicly available" should be
supplies, this information must be submitted in an application. This may require that the applicant submit a specific
added.
request to the local or state agency that can provide this information for the proposed landfill location. The Division cannot
remove the requirement for this information just because it is not as easily obtained as the rest of the information in the
permit application. If the agency that can provide this information is refusing to supply it to the applicant, the applicant
could ask them to supply it to the Division directly, or the Division can work with the applicant to resolve the matter on a
case -by -case basis if it occurs.
.0537(e)(4)
Was the requirement for a traffic study considered in the fiscal analysis of this rule?
The statutory requirement for a traffic study has been a requirement applicable to sanitary landfills, including C&D
landfills, since the statute was effective in 2007, and therefore is considered a part of the baseline for the proposed rule
changes. The Division has enforced this requirement for C&D landfills since 2007, according to the applicability stated in
Session Law 2007-550 (see Section 8.(b) of the Session Law for applicability). In general, the Session Law exempts
landfills existing prior to June 2006 from traffic study requirements that are more stringent than the traffic study
requirements existing before that date. The addition of the reference to the statute requirement in rule is for ease of
review only, and changes nothing in the requirements for these landfills. Because it is a part of the baseline for these
rules, a fiscal analysis is not required for the proposed addition of the reference.
.0537(e)(5)
Was the cost of the study of environmental impacts considered in the fiscal analysis of this
As stated above, the statutory requirement for a study of environmental impacts has been a requirement applicable to
rule?
sanitary landfills, including C&D landfills, since the statute was effective in 2007 according to the applicability stated in
Session Law 2007-550 Section 9.(b), and later revised by Session Laws 2013-410 Section 47.6 and 2013-413 Section
59.1; and therefore is considered a part of the baseline for the proposed rule changes. The addition of the reference to
the statute requirement in rule is for ease of review only, and changes nothing in the requirements for these landfills.
Because the statute is a part of the baseline for these rules, a fiscal analysis is not required for the proposed addition of
the reference.
The Division has amended Rule .0537(e)(5) and Rule .1619(e)(7) to state: "A study of environmental impacts shall be
conducted as required by G.S. 130A-295.6(a) and in accordance with the effective dates and applicability set forth in S.L.
2007-550 and S.L. 2013-413 as amended by S.L. 2013-410."
.0538(a)(4)(e)
Please define dispersive characteristics. This term is undefined in the rule.
The response to this comment assumes the comment is regarding Rule .0538(a)(4)(E) in the rules published for public
comment. This existing language is requiring a description of testing programs that would be used to determine site -
specific hydrogeologic & geologic properties of the uppermost aquifer. Dispersive characteristic is more a qualitative
description of how a contaminant plume would be expected to move and spread in the aquifer along the path of
groundwater flow based on the interaction between the specific physical aquifer conditions and individual contaminant
properties. There is no testing procedure available for measuring dispersiveness of the aquifer. This subject is covered in
the hydrogeological evaluation summary of Site Hydro Report, specifically as described in .0538(a)(13)(D).

D-12
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
The Division has amended Rule .0538(a)(4)(E) to state:
"saturated hydraulic conductivity, porosity, and effective porosity and dispeFs,,,o nhaFaGtoric+inc for each lithologic unit of
the uppermost aquifer including the vadose zone."
.0539(f)
DEQ please clarify the applicability of SL 2007-550: the reference may need to be
The statute language in G.S. 130A-295.6(e) and (h) has required liners and leachate collection systems for C&D landfills
amended, (e) noted below refers to a liner system, the leachate system is detailed in (h).
since the statute was effective in 2007. The Division has been enforcing the statute language since that time according to
We would recommend that the referenced language be included in the rule with the
the applicability stated in S.L. 2007-550 Section 9.(b). Session Law 2007-550 exempts certain landfills and applications
applicability language noted in (1) and (2) below:
from the new requirements for liners which is why it was important to add the language stating "in accordance with the
(1) An amendment, modification, or other change to a permit for a landfill issued on or
effective date and applicability set forth in S.L. 2007-550" following the statute reference. G.S. 130A-295.6(h) was later
after 1 June 2006.
revised by S.L. 2013-413, but the applicability for (h) was not changed by that revision (in S.L. 2013-410 Section 47.6).
(2) A permit for a horizontal or vertical expansion of the landfill permitted after1 June 2006.
G.S. 15OB-19(4), as mentioned above, and may only add a reference to the applicable statute, as was done in the
(e) A sanitary landfill for the disposal of construction and demolition debris waste shall be
proposed language.
constructed with a liner system that consists of a flexible membrane liner over two feet of
soil with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second. The flexible
The Division has amended Rule .0539(f) to reference all of G.S. 130A-295.6, and to reference S.L 2007-550 and S.L.
membrane liner shall have a minimum thickness of thirty one -thousandths of an inch
2013-413 as amended by S.L. 2013-410.
(0.030"), except that a liner that consists of high -density polyethylene shall be at least sixty
one -thousandths of an inch (0.060") thick. The flexible membrane liner shall be installed in
direct and uniform contact with the soil layer. The Department may approve an alternative
to the soil component of the liner system if the Department finds, based on modeling, that
the alternative liner system will provide an equivalent or greater degree of impermeability.
(h) The following requirements apply to any sanitary landfill for which a liner is required:
(1) A geomembrane base liner system shall be tested for leaks and damage by methods
approved by the Department that ensure that the entire liner is evaluated.
(2) A leachate collection system shall be designed to return the head of the liner to 30
centimeters or less within 72 hours. The design shall be based on the precipitation that
would fall on an empty cell of the sanitary landfill as a result of a 25-year-24-hour storm
event. The leachate collection system shall maintain a head of less than 30 centimeters at
all times during leachate recirculation. The Department may require the operator to monitor
the head of the liner to demonstrate that the head is being maintained in accordance with
this subdivision and any applicable rules.
(3) All leachate collection lines shall be designed and constructed to permanently allow
cleaning and remote camera inspection. All leachate collection lines shall be cleaned at
least once a year, except that the Department may allow leachate collection lines to be
cleaned once every two years if: (i) the facility has continuous flow monitoring; and (ii) the
permit holder demonstrates to the Department that the leachate collection lines are clear
and functional based on at least three consecutive annual cleanings. Remote camera
inspections of the leachate collection lines shall occur upon completion of construction, at
least once every five years thereafter, and following the clearing of blockages. (4) Any
pipes used to transmit leachate shall provide dual containment outside of the disposal unit.
The bottom liner of a sanitary landfill shall be constructed without pipe penetrations.
.0542(e)(17)
Please clarify which permitting authorities are required or specify who is authorized.
Some states (or cities, counties, or waste authorities within those states) allow C&D waste to be sorted, crushed, ground,
or otherwise processed prior to shipment for disposal in a manner that may cause the waste to appear to be something
other than C&D waste. The Division allows the waste to be shipped to and disposed in NC at permitted C&D landfills if
the state or local government agency that regulates waste management in another state inspects the processing and
certifies that the waste is indeed C&D waste.
The Division has amended Rule .0542(e)(17) to state:
"a^ „ th^r;zod a state or local government regulatory authority".

D-13
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0542(f)(1)
We believe the working face of a landfill should be site specific and based upon the site
The existing language does not prevent a landfill from having the size of their working face be site -specific, other than to
design, tonnage received, equipment and operational factors. We recommend this should
limit the maximum size of the working face. A landfill may have a working face of any size under the maximum limit. The
be specified in the Operations Manual for approval.
existing language provides for a clear and consistent requirement for the maximum size of the working face for all landfills
statewide for the purpose of ensuring prevention or minimization of vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging.
.0542(m)
The timeline required for survey (60 days) may not be feasible depending up on the
This existing language does not prevent the Division from accepting a survey that was taken within the last year, and in
season and should be extended. A sentence should be added to this section which states
many cases a survey that is a year old or even older may be sufficient to satisfy the Division's request or concerns.
"The permittee may use an existing survey if the survey was generated within 12 months of
However, the Division's reasons in any particular situation for requesting a site survey may require that the survey be
receipt of the Division's written request."
more recent than one year, and the rule should not restrict the Division from requesting a new survey. Note that the
language in existing Rule .0542(m)(1) already puts restrictions on when the Division may request a survey, which is only
if there is reason to suspect non-compliance or for a periodic verification of compliance.
The Division has amended Rule .0542(m)(1)(B) to state that this request can be made no more than once per year to be
consistent with the same requirement in the rules in Section .1600.
For example, a survey may have been done a year ago, but the Division's staff conducted an inspection two weeks ago
and they found that the landfill appears to have recently expanded into a buffer area or outside their permitted
boundaries. In this situation, a survey done a year ago would not be sufficient to verify the current boundaries and buffer
areas to determine compliance with the rules and permit conditions today.
.0542(n)(1)(A)
We request changing the term "certification of training" to "documentation of training". Not
The language of this rule was not proposed to be changed from the existing rule and there was no intent to enforce this
all training receives a certification since some training is done in-house.
rule in any way different than it has been enforced since the existing rule was effective in 1993. The requirement to
include the certification only applies to training where a certification is required. For clarification, the Division has
amended Rule .0542(n)(1)(A) to state:
"records of random waste inspections, monitoring results, certifications of training required by G.S. 130A-309.25, and
documentation of training PFOGedures-required by Rule .0544 .0544(e)(3) of this Section;"
.0544(b)(1)(D)
For constituents that are affected by seasonal fluctuations, a true representation of
The Division has amended Rule .0544(b)(1)(D) to state:
background conditions may not be captured in the data utilized for statistical background
"To establish baseline, no less than four independent samples A minimurrn Of „no samp[e from each weld background and
comparisons in only six months. We recommend the timeline be changed to 12 months.
downgradient monitoring well d^WRgFadieRt must shall be collected within a twelve-month period, and
analyzed for the constituents..."
This change also accommodates the change to annual sampling as required by Session Law.
.0544(b)(1)(D)
Were the added four sampling events considered in the fiscal evaluation of this rule?
Yes, see Page C-13 of the approved fiscal note published for comment on the Department's website during the comment
period here: https://deg.nc.gov/documents/15a-ncac-13b-0531-0547-1105-1111-1600-and-1800.
.0544(b)(1)(D),
Please clarify the process and timeline for an Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration
15A NCAC 13B Rules .0531 - .0547 and Section .1600, which were published for public comment and are under
.0544(b)(4),
(IMAC) to become promulgated under 2L. As the language stands now, an IMAC could
consideration in this Hearing Officer's Report, do not contain any requirements for the process and timeline for Interim
.0544(b)(7)
remain as an IMAC indefinitely, thus bypassing the public notification process and
Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMACs). These requirements are found in 15A NCAC 02L. The rules pertaining to
comment period as well as bypassing the evaluation of fiscal impacts. It is not the intent of
the requirements for IMACs in Subchapter 02L are being considered by the EMC under a separate rule -making package.
the general statutes to allow rules to bypass these critical foundations of law making
Any comments or questions regarding those rules would need to be addressed in a Hearing Officer's Report following a
therefore a process and timeline whereby an IMAC is adopted to the 2L standards must be
public comment period for those rules.
defined.
.0544(b)(7)(B)
We recommend the removal of item B until after such time as the Alternate Source
The Division added the 90-day timeframe in the C&D rules to be consistent with current policy and with ASD
and (C)
Demonstration in Rule .0544(b)(7)(C) is completed and has not proven an alternate
requirements required in the .1600 MSW rules. As opposed to MSW landfills, C&D landfills are unlined, and requiring
source. We further recommend extending the timeframe for completion of the Alternate
necessary action to investigate releases expeditiously is appropriate and warranted in this case. Also consistent with
Source Demonstration as 90-days is insufficient to performing this type of study.
current policy, the Division has, on a case -by -case basis as warranted, allowed for extended time for establishing site
background in accordance with Rule .0544(b)(3) prior to making a final determination of whether an exceedance was
attributed to a release from the landfill or to natural -occurring conditions, such as for natural site background metals
values.

D-14
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
The Division has amended Rule .0544(b)(7)(B) to state:
"...shall establish an assessment monitoring program in accordance with Rule .0545 of this Section within 90 days
except as provided for in Part (C) of this Subparagraph;"
To clarify constituent exceedances requiring assessment, the Division has also amended Rule .0544(b)(7) to state:
"...in accordance with Rule .0545(c) of this Section for one or more of the constituents being monitored at any
monitoring well, the owner or operator..."
.0544(d)(1)(A)
Was the added cost of specific hydrogen sulfide monitoring equipment included in the
Yes, see Page C-20 of the approved fiscal note published for comment on the Department's website during the comment
fiscal evaluation for this proposed rule?
period here: https://deg.nc.gov/documents/15a-ncac-13b-0531-0547-1105-1111-1600-and-1800.
.0545(a)
One unverified sampling event is insufficient to warrant initiating assessment monitoring
Rule .0544(b)(7) initiates actions for entering into assessment per Rule .0545(a) and states "If the owner or operator
and procedures. Further, completion of the Alternate Source Demonstration should be
determines that there is an exceedance...". This wording allows the owner or operator to accept the result as valid or, if
allowed prior to initiation of assessment. A sufficient timeframe should be allowed for
not, the opportunity to verify the result as valid prior to `determining' there is an exceedance if they suspect the original
completion of the Alternate Source Demonstration should be provided for in the rule
analytical result to be in error, whether due to lab error, compromised sample, sampling error or such. Assessment
language.
requirements in Rule .0545(a), as well as notifications requirements in Rule .0544(b)(7)(A) and (B), are not required until
such a determination is made. Reporting of the monitoring results, including verification sampling, must still be in
accordance with .0544(b)(6).
The Division has amended Rule .0544(b)(7) to state: "If the owner or operator determines, upon evaluation of laboratory
data or by a verification sampling event that there is an exceedance..."
The Division has amended Rule .0545(a) concerning assessment triggers and to be consistent with .0544(b)(7) to state:
"Assessment monitoring shall be required if, in any sampling event, one or more constituents being monitored in any
monitoring well are detected above..."
With respect to time for conducting an alternate source demonstration, please see response above to the comment on
Rule .0544(b)(7)(B) and (C).
.0545(a)(2)
Thirty days is insufficient to verify sample results, receive analytical data, review all
Rule .0544(b)(7)(B) sets a 90-day timeframe for establishing the assessment program. The 30 day requirement was the
pertinent hydrogeological information and prepare an alternate source demonstration plan.
existing rule timeframe.
We suggest a timeframe of 60 days.
The Division has corrected the inconsistency and has amended Rule .0545(a)(2) to state:
"Within -30-90 days of triggering an assessment monitoring program in accordance with
this Paragraph, the owner and operator shall ..."
.0545(a)
We request that the wording be changed from "each exceedance" to "each constituent that
The Division is unsure of what is being requested as the comment references wording that is not contained in the
exceeds the water quality standard". Also, this section should be revised to allow for an
proposed rule .0545(a).
alternate source demonstration to be performed prior to commencing assessment
activities.
.0545(a)(2)
To allow for detected constituents to be verified prior to notifications, we request this
See response above to comment on Rule .0545(a) for when and how assessment program requirements in Rule .0545(a)
section be revised to say "shall, within 30 days of verifying this finding..."
are initiated.
.0545(b)
Was the cost of preparation of the Assessment Monitoring Work Plan evaluated as part of
Existing Rule .0545(b) requires the preparation and submittal of an assessment monitoring work plan, so this is not a new
the fiscal analysis for these rules?
requirement. Because the requirement was in existing rule, and existing rule is considered a part of the baseline for this
rule -making action, no fiscal analysis is required where no change to existing rule is made. The underlined text in this
Paragraph was only moved here from Paragraph (a)(1) or reworded.
.0545(b)(2)
This section should be revised to limit Appendix II monitoring to those areas where an
Proposed Rule .0545(d)(4) allows for provisions to limit which wells are required to be included in assessment monitoring.
exceedance of Appendix I constituents has occurred.
This rule is the same as the existing Rule .0544(b)(6) but reorganized.

111M
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
Proposed Rule .0545(d)(5) also allows provisions for an alternate frequency or subset of wells to be sampled and
analyzed for Appendix II.
These two Rules together provide room for site -specific flexibility and relief on assessment requirements for facilities with
documented groundwater contamination while also balancing the Division's requirement to protect the health of public
and the environment.
.0545(d)(1)
The language modification implies an increase in reporting requirements as part of the
Rule .0545(d)(1) is not requiring additional reporting requirements for assessment monitoring sample events. Existing
assessment. Has this increased reporting been considered in the fiscal evaluation of this
Rule .0545(b)(7) requires submittal of an assessment report for the initial and subsequent assessments sampling events.
proposed rule?
Also, the requirements for reporting on monitoring sampling events, whether a site is in detection monitoring or
assessment monitoring, are essentially the same as requirements in existing Rules .0544(b)(1)(H) with only minor
clarifications.
.0545(d)(3)
Assessment monitoring should be limited to those areas and wells that exhibit
See response above to comment on Rules .0545(b)(2).
exceedances of water quality standards.
.0545(d)(4)
Please change the word "specify" in this section to "approve". The owner/operator will
The Division has amended Rule .0545(d)(4) to state:
specify the network and parameters for approval.
"The Division may approve an appropriate subset of wells to be sampled and analyzed during
assessment monitoring if the owner or operator demonstrates that the proposed wells to be sampled meet the
requirements for assessment monitoring in accordance with this Paragraph."
.0545(d)(5)(D)
We recommend this be modified to state "minimum distance of contaminant travel".
The Division has amended Rule .0545(d)(5)(D) to state:
"minimum distance between the upgradient edge of the C&DLF unit and the downgradient monitor well screened
interval:"
The Division has also amended rules concerning "minimum distance of travel" in the MSW Rules in Section .1600 to be
consistent with 40 CFR 258 as follows:
The Division has amended Rule .1633(c)(4) to be consistent with 40 CFR 258.54(b)(4) to state:
"minimum distance between the upgradient edge of the MSWLF unit and the downgradient monitoring well screened
interval:"
The Division has amended Rule .1634(c)(6)(D) to be consistent with 40 CFR 258.55(c)(4) to state:
"minimum distance between the upgradient edge of the MSWLF unit and the downgradient monitoring well screened
interval:"
.0545(d)(5)
We request that the wording "no less than annually" be removed from the language. Water
The Division is unsure of what is being requested as the comment references wording that is not contained in the
quality monitoring should be based on site specific information.
proposed Rule .0545(d)(5) as published for public comment.
.0545(d)(6)
We request that the wording be changed from "each exceedance" to "each constituent that
The alternative source demonstration (ASD) in proposed Rule .0545(d)(6) provides an alternative source option during
exceeds the water quality standard".
the course of assessment monitoring for any newly reported exceedances beyond the constituent exceedance(s) that
Also, this section should be revised to allow for an alternate source demonstration to be
initially triggered a site being in the assessment in accordance with .0544(b)(7). Regardless of the outcome of an ASD for
performed prior to commencing assessment activities. The section states "After
new constituent exceedances, a site would still be in assessment due to the existing and ongoing exceedances. If a
completion of sections a and b of this section..." Section (d)(6) which allows for an
successful demonstration is made, then no change to the assessment monitoring would be required. Rule .0544(b)(7)(C)
alternate source demonstration should be included in that reference so an alternate source
addresses ASDs prior to assessment activities.
demonstration may be performed prior to assessment activities.
See response above to comment on Rules .0544(b)(7)(B) and (c) concerning ASDs for reported exceedances during
detection monitoring and prior to entering assessment.
The Division has amended Rule .0545(d)(6) to state:
"During assessment monitoring, the owner or operator may demonstrate, in accordance with Rule .0544(b)(7) of this
Section, and for any constituent not previously reported to exceed the groundwater protection standards, that a source

MKO
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
other than a C&DLF caused the exceedance of the groundwater quality standards established in accordance with 15A
NCAC 02L .0202 or groundwater protection standards established in accordance with Paragraph (c) of this Rule, or that
the exceedance resulted from error in sampling, analysis, or natural variation in groundwater quality. If a successful
demonstration is made for each newly reported constituent that exceeds the groundwater protection standard, the owner
or operator shall continue assessment monitoring as required in this Paragraph, unless and until the requirements of
Subparagraph (7) of this Paragraph are met."
.0545(f)
Please change the wording of "within 120 days of completion of the assessment of
Division approval of the assessment of corrective measures (ACM) is not requested nor required in rule. The ACM is
corrective measures..." to "within 120 days of DEQ approval of the assessment of
meant to be self -implementing for the owner or operator. This is consistent with existing Rule .0545(d). The requirements
corrective measures..."
are the owner or operator completes the ACM requirements and then must, within 120 days of completion of the ACM,
discuss the results of the ACM in a public meeting prior to selection of a remedy.
Upon selection of the remedy based on the outcome of the ACM, the owner/operator then submits an application to
modify the permit to include the selected remedy provisions for Division review and approval per Rule .0545(g)(1).
Existing Rules .0545(c) and (d) did not include timelines for completion or presenting the ACM in a public meeting. The
amendment to Rule .0545(e) adds "shall be completed within 120 days or as approved by the Division" to allow more time
for completion of the ACM if needed. Rule .0545(f) requires public presentation "within 120 days of completion of the
assessment of corrective measures..."
.0545(k)
Can a timeline for NCDEQ review of submittals also be included in the proposed rule?
Rule .0545(k) is the proposed requirement for the owner or operator to submit a Corrective Action Evaluation Report to
the Division every five years, as is done in practice under existing rule. Since the requirement in the proposed rule to
submit this report does not also require a response from the Division, there is no action on which to impose the deadline.
.1603(a)(2)(A)
The term "subsequent stage" of landfill development is used several times in the proposed
With life -of -site permitting requirements, the Division no longer requires that an applicant limit a permit to construct
rules, but is not defined. Please provide clarification on the meaning of this term as used
application to a five-year phase. However, the Division understands that not all facility owners will want to request a
in the proposed rule and/or add a definition for the term.
permit to construct that covers the entire 60-year period and will want to continue phased permitting, phased construction,
and phased operation. The Division believes that the language added to this rule and to Rule .0533(a)(3) prior to public
comment in response to further discussions with stakeholders on this topic serves to define this phrase by stating: "For
any subsequent stage of landfill development, that the applicant has not included in the plans required by Rule
.0534(b)(1) of this Section for any prior stage of landfill development,..." The intent of this added phrase is to clarify that it
is the applicant that determines their own stages of landfill development based on what they choose to submit for
approval in each application for a permit to construct. Therefore, the Division is intentionally electing not to define
specifically what a stage is in rule; but is leaving it to be defined by the applicant in their permit applications. The Division
believes that the proposed language will accommodate those that wish to continue the phased approach (and will allow
them to determine the size of the phases or stages) and those that wish to permit the full extent of the facility at one time.
.1603(c)(2)(A)
Is there a timeline for the NCDEQ to review draft permits? G.S. 130A-309.203 sets a strict
Please see the response to the same comment regarding Rule .0533(c)(2) above.
timeframe for NCDEQ permit reviews. This statute should be incorporated by reference
into the proposed rule, or the language from the statute should be added to the proposed
rule for clarity.
.1603(c)(6)(A)(i)
What are the guidelines for triggering a public hearing? How will requests for a public
The guidelines are as stated in the existing rule and remain generally unchanged in the proposed rule, except that the
hearing be managed in this regard? Are there limits to the number of public hearings that
language was amended to be consistent with the same language in Rule .0533(c)(6)(A) discussed above. The guidelines
can be held? Please clarify this process. The way it is written any party may request a
apply only when public participation is required — for a new landfill that has never been permitted, for increases to
hearing, the stricken language should be restored.
previously permitted waste or facility boundaries, and for substantial amendments (>10% increase) to service area,
population to be served, or amount of waste to be disposed (overall capacity or acceptance rate). Anyone may request a
public hearing, as stated in existing language in Rule .1603(c)(5), they shall do so in writing and state the nature of the
issues proposed to be raised in the hearing a public hearing, and a public hearing will be held. An alternative to this
requirement would be to always require a public hearing on a draft permit, whether one is requested or not, but the
Division feels that this is generally not necessary if no one requests a hearing. Note that Rule .1603(c)(5) states in part,

iarA
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
any interested person may... request a public hearing if no hearing has already been scheduled." Therefore, the rule
language only allows a hearing to be requested if one was not already scheduled. Nothing in Rule .1603(c) requires that
more than one hearing be held.
The language was proposed to be struck from Rule .1603(c)(6)(A) as follows: "The Division shall hold a public hearing on
a draft permit(s) when a hearing is requested. wheReyer ^r, the basic of requests a SigR,f,nan4 degree of publin interest inir�
a draft permit(s) is determined." This language was struck as a result of the pre -review by Rules Review Commission
staff because it is unclear, and the phrase "significant degree of public interest" would have to be defined for the language
to remain. That is why this language was not retained when the hearing language was copied over from this rule into Rule
.0533(c) for C&D landfills when those rules were adopted in 2007. Also, it could be seen as being misleading and
somewhat contradictory to the statement in Rule .1603(c)(5) that any interested party may request a hearing. What is the
purpose of allowing someone to request a hearing only to have that request be refused because there was not an
additional arbitrary number of requests submitted?
.1604(b)(2)(J)
Is it NCDEQ's intent to inspect facilities without the owner's representative present? In the
The requirements in this Part have not been changed from the existing rule, therefore the Division does not intend to
interest of safety, routine inspections must be performed in the presence of a facility
enforce this rule in any way different than it has been enforced since the existing rule was effective in 1993. Under
employee.
existing rule, Division staff already conduct inspections in the presence of facility staff.
.1604(b)(2)(J)(i
In order to facilitate "split samples" the owner/operator would require advanced notice
The Division is not required to split samples with the permittee. If the Division requests to split samples with the permittee
v) and
(typically of two business days) of the NCDEQ's intent to split samples in order to arrange
in accordance with Rule .1604(b)(2)(K), as the Division regularly chooses to do under existing rule, neither the existing or
.1604(b)(2)(K)(i
for laboratory glassware and facility representative presence for split sampling to occur.
proposed rule language prevents the Division from making arrangements with the permittee to split samples in a time
This notification should be added to this proposed language. Additionally, there should be
frame agreed upon by the Division and the permittee. However in order to clarify and address this request as directly
language stating that NCDEQ will share results of split sampling with the owner/operator in
regarding splitting of samples, the Division has amended Rule .1604(b)(2)(J) to remove the proposed language regarding
a timely fashion upon receipt.
24 hour notice, and has amended Rule .1604(b)(2)(K) to state:
"Samples and measurements taken for monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity. The permittee shall
split any required samples with the Di„iSi^n „n^n request. Department upon request bV the Department. If the
Department requests that the permittee split samples with the Department, the permittee and the Department shall collect
the samples on a schedule that allows the permittee and the Department to obtain sample containers and equipment
prior to sampling.
.1604(b)(2)(M)(i
A sentence should be added to this section which states "The permittee may use an
This existing language does not prevent the Division from accepting a survey that was taken within the last year, and in
existing survey if the survey was generated within 12 months of receipt of the Division's
many cases a survey that is a year old or even older may be sufficient to satisfy the Division's request or concerns.
written request."
However, the Division's reasons in any particular situation for requesting a site survey may require that the survey be
more recent than one year, and the rule should not restrict the Division from requesting a new survey. Note that the
language in existing Rule .1604(b)(M)(ii) already puts restrictions on when the Division may request a survey, which is
only if there is reason to suspect non-compliance or for a periodic verification of compliance, no more than once per year.
For example, a survey may have been done a year ago, but the Division's staff conducted an inspection two weeks ago
and they found that the landfill appears to have recently expanded into a buffer area or outside their permitted
boundaries. In this situation, a survey done a year ago would not be sufficient to verify the current boundaries and buffer
areas to determine compliance with the rules and permit conditions today.
.1617(e)
This section should refer to a Post -Closure permit modification, rather than a new permit.
Because the proposed closure and post -closure care permit language was not included in Rule .1617(a) or (b) for the
Further discussion between the solid waste management industry and the NCDEQ is
requirements for a "new permit" as defined in statute, it is not considered to be a "new permit." Also Rule .1617(e)(1)
necessary to define what this submittal should include. Also, please clarify how this
makes no mention of the closure and post -closure permit being a new permit. This proposed permit is also not a permit
proposed language would affect landfills previously closed under the .1600 rules?
modification and should not be referred to as such because that would mean it is a continuation of the permit to operate,
and a permit to operate is required by statute to expire at the end of life -of -site, meaning (per statute) when the landfill
reaches its highest permitted elevation or after 60 years, whereas a permit for closure and post -closure would be needed
to cover the post -closure care period of 30 years or more after the landfill reaches its highest permitted elevation and
closes, or beyond the 60-year life -of -site.

MR-]
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
MSW landfills that did not receive waste after October 1991 (or October 1993) and were required to close and conduct
post -closure care in accordance with existing Rule .0510, their permit conditions, and any closure letter or closure permit
that was issued to the landfill at the time of closure are exempted from the requirements of Section .1600 by Rule
.1601(b)(1) (and (b)(2), in existing rule and proposed rule). Therefore, this proposed language does not apply to those
landfills.
.1618(c)(1)(C)
After September 11, 2001 some of this information is no longer made public and therefore
Since a landfill cannot be constructed if no determination can be made on the distance to potable wells and public water
may not be available for submission. A provision regarding "if publicly available" should be
supplies, this information must be submitted in an application. This may require that the applicant submit a specific
added.
request to the local or state agency that can provide this information for the proposed landfill location. The Division cannot
remove the requirement for this information just because it is not as easily obtained as the rest of the information in the
permit application. If the agency that can provide this information is refusing to supply it to the applicant, the applicant
could ask them to supply it to the Division directly, or the Division can work with the applicant to resolve the matter on a
case -by -case basis if it occurs.
.1620(c)
The proposed rule states: "...that provides no less than approximately five years of
There is no such error in Rule .1620 as published for public comment. The first use of "capacity" in that sentence is
operating capacity, capacity and no more than the total facility capacity." Remove the
struck through. "Approximately" was also struck through in the published rule.
second "capacity".
.1622(1)
There is confusion regarding which "facility" some of this language refers to. To clarify, it
The Division has amended Rule .1622(1) to include only a reference to the same applicable requirement in 40 CFR
would be helpful to change the sentence "...within the physical capacity of the available
258.10.
facilities." to "...within the current physical capacity of the existing aviation facilities."
.1623(a)(4)(e)
Please clarify what "dispersive characteristics" will be required. These are not defined.
Rule .1623(a)(4)(E) is requiring a description of testing programs that would be used to determine site -specific
hydrogeologic & geologic properties of the uppermost aquifer. Dispersive characteristic is more a qualitative description
of how a contaminant plume would be expected to move and spread in the aquifer along the path of groundwater flow
based on the interaction between the specific physical aquifer conditions and individual contaminant properties. There is
no testing procedure available for measuring dispersiveness of the aquifer. This subject is covered in the hydrogeological
evaluation summary of Site Hydro Report, specifically as described in .1623(a)(13)(D).
The Division has amended Rule .1623(a)(4)(E) to state:
"saturated hydraulic conductivity, porosity, and effective porosity and dicnorci„o nharantoric+inc for each lithologic unit of
the uppermost aquifer including the vadose zone."
.1623(b)(3)(B)
The language in this proposed rule should address two items:
The Division has amended Rule .1623(b)(3)(B) to state:
1) confirmation of constituent concentrations in surface water prior to discussions
"If a surface water standard is not established under 15A NCAC 02B .0200 for any confirmed detections of any
regarding establishing a surface water standard (if none exists); and
constituent or parameter in a downgradient sample location, dote. tee nGnciitueRt eF paFamete the owner or operator
2) the plan should only require establishment of a surface water standard if the constituent
shall obtain a determination from the Division on the applicable establishing surface water standard using ...".
is detected in the downgradient location(s).
.1623(b)(3)(C)
We suggest changing the term "Constituents of Concern" to "monitored constituents".
The Division has amended Rule .1623(b)(3)(C) as requested, and also Rules .1 623(a)(1 3)(D), .1631(d), and .1632(b), to
use the term "monitored constituents" instead of "constituents of concern."
.1626(10)(a)(i)
We request changing the term "certification of training" to "documentation of training". Not
The added requirement to include the certification only applies to training where a certification is required.
all training receives a certification since some training is done in-house.
The Division has amended Rule .1626(10)(a)(i) to state:
"inspection records, waste determination records, certifications of training required by G.S. 130A-309.25, and
documentation of training required by Item(1) f iii of this Rule;"
.1627(d)(3)
It is unclear what is required to be certified and what would require a professional seal.
The certification is required to be done by a licensed professional engineer if the work required by the post -closure care
plan is work that falls under the purview of a licensed professional engineer in accordance with G.S. 89C, and as
determined by the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. The Rules Review Commission has
made clear in past decisions that neither the Department nor the EMC has the authority to determine through rule
requirements what constitutes the work of a licensed professional. The EMC does have the ability to add notes
throughout the rules stating that a licensing board has issued a resolution stating that the work described in a particular

1�7
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
rule requirement does constitute the work of a licensed professional, but the Division has not received any such
resolution from any licensing boards regarding this requirement to date. The proposed rule language was provided
directly to the licensing boards regulated by G.S. 89C, E, and F for comment prior to the public comment period for these
rules.
.1631(g),
Please clarify the process and timeline for an Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration
15A NCAC 13B Rules .0531 - .0547 and Section .1600, which were published for public comment and are under
.1632(g), &
(IMAC) to become promulgated under 2L. As the language stands now, an IMAC could
consideration in this Hearing Officer's Report, do not contain any requirements for the process and timeline for Interim
.1633(d)
remain as an IMAC indefinitely, thus bypassing the public notification process and
Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMACs). These requirements are found in 15A NCAC 02L. The rules pertaining to
comment period as well as bypassing the evaluation of fiscal impacts. It is not the intent of
the requirements for IMACs in Subchapter 02L are being considered by the EMC under a separate rule -making package.
the general statutes to allow rules to bypass these critical foundations of law making
Any comments or questions regarding those rules would need to be addressed in a Hearing Officer's Report following a
therefore a process and timeline whereby an IMAC is adopted to the 2L standards must be
public comment period for those rules.
defined.
.16320)
Please review the reference in this proposed section. We believe the section should refer
The response to this comment assumes the comment is regarding Rule .1632(i) in the rules published for public
to .1632(g) not .1634.
comment. The comment may be regarding a prior draft version of the rules.
The Division has amended Rule .1632(i) to state:
"...as defined in Rule .1634(b)(3) through (4) 4634(g) of this Section."
.1633(d)(1)
To allow for detected constituents to be verified prior to notifications, we request this
Rule .1633(d) states "If the owner or operator determines that there is an exceedance...". This wording in the existing rule
section be revised to say "shall, within 14 days of verifying this finding..."
has not changed and allows the owner or operator to accept the result as valid or, if not, the opportunity to verify the
result as valid prior to `determining' the exceedance if they suspect the original analytical result to be in error, whether
due to lab error, compromised sample, sampling error or such. Notification in Rule .1633(d)(1) is not required until such a
determination is made, but the reporting of the monitoring results must still be in accordance with .1633(i).
The Division has amended Rule .1633(d)(1) to state:
"...within 14 days of this findetermination, report to..."
.1634(a)
Was the cost of preparation of the Assessment Monitoring Work Plan evaluated as part of
Rule .1634(a) as published for public comment does not require the preparation or submittal of an Assessment
the fiscal analysis for these rules?
Monitoring Work Plan. This comment may be pertaining to a prior draft version of these rules.
.1634(b)
Please check the reference in this section. We believe the section should refer to
The Division has amended Rule .1634(b) to state:
.1633(d).
"...in accordance with Rule .V��� .1633(d)(2) of this Section,..."
.1634(b)(2)
This section should be revised to limit Appendix II monitoring to those areas where an
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
exceedance of Appendix I constituents has occurred.
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.55(b) for reference.
.1634(b)(4)
Sections 3 and 4 should be combined under one sub -heading called Comparison to
The response to this comment assumes the comment is regarding Rules .1634(b)(3) and (b)(4) in the rules published for
Standards, with sections 3 and 4 as sub -headings of what to do if standards do not exist.
public comment. The organization and content of Subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this Rule is the essentially the same
as the existing rules .1634(g) and(h) with only minor clarifications and edits. The organizational structure and text are also
consistent with, and based on, how these requirements are presented in 40 CFR 258.55(h) and (i). The public and
regulated community have been used to and are familiar with this structure as these rules were first adopted in 1993 and
the Division is not aware of any persistent issues or confusion with this structure. Further, staff regularly provides
guidance and clarifications to the regulated community and public as needed for any questions concerning rules or policy.
.1634(b)(6)
Are the referenced rules in this section correct?
Rule references for "Subparagraph (3) of this Paragraph" and "Subparagraph (4) of this Paragraph" and "Rule
.1631(a)(1)" are correct.
The Division has amended Rule .1634(b)(6) to state:
"The background level shall be established in accordance with Rules .1631(a)(1) and .1632.1632(e) through (h) of this
Section."

D-20
Comments Submitted on 4/14/20 by Scott Bost, Chapter President on behalf of the NC Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (NC SWANA)
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.1634(c)(4)
Assessment monitoring should be limited to those areas and wells that exhibit
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
exceedances of water quality standards.
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.55(d)(2) for reference.
.1634(c)(6)
What is the reasoning behind "no less than annually". Water quality monitoring should be
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
based on site specific information.
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.55(d)(2) for reference.
.1634(d)
We request that the wording be changed from "each exceedance" to "each constituent that
The Division has amended Rule .1634(d) to state:
exceeds the water quality standard".
"If a successful demonstration is made for each e GeedaRGe constituent that exceeds the groundwater quality standard or
Also, this section should be revised to allow for an alternate source demonstration to be
groundwater protection standard, the owner or operator may diSGGRtiR e shall continue assessment monitoring and may
performed prior to commencing assessment activities.
return to detection monitoring...."
Concerning allowing for an alternate source demonstration prior to assessment:
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.58(g)(2) for reference.
.1635(d)
Please change the wording of "within 120 days of completion of the assessment of
Division approval of the assessment of corrective measures (ACM) is not requested nor required. The ACM is meant to
corrective measures..." to "within 120 days of DEQ approval of the assessment of
be self -implementing for the owner or operator. This is consistent with 40 CFR 258.56(d). The requirements are the
corrective measures..."
owner or operator completes the ACM requirements and then must discuss the results of the ACM in a public meeting
prior to selection of a remedy. Upon selection of the remedy based on the outcome of the ACM, the owner/operator then
submits an application to modify the permit to include the selected remedy provisions for Division review and approval per
Rule .1636(a) Selection of Remedy.
Existing Rule .1635(a) requires completion of the ACM within 120 days upon initiation of ACM. The amendment to Rule
.1635(a) adds "or as approved by the Division." to allow more time for completion of the ACM if needed. 40 CFR 258.56
states "Such an assessment must be completed within a reasonable period of time."
.1635 and
In the list of notice options there should be a third options included that is "Other methods
The response to this comment assumes the comment is regarding requirements for public comment in Rules .1635(d)
.1636
as approved by the NCDEQ". Currently there is state law that says that public entities can
and requirements for processing a permit application in .1636(a), which cross references Rule .1603(c). Rule .1603(c)
use their websites for pub notices and we request that this or other means be open for
was amended prior to publication to allow for other formats for notice such as websites and social media.
consideration.
Rule .1635(d) lists the requirements for public notice of the public meeting conducted by the owner. It should be noted
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule revisions. If you have any
also that this public meeting process does not involve the Division other than to be provided a copy of the public notice
questions regarding our comments, please contact us at your earliest convenience.
five days prior to publication.
The Division has amended the last two sentences of Rule .1635(d) to state:
"The owner or operator shall provide a copy of the public notice to those persons requesting notification at the mailing
address or e-mail address provided by those persons. Public notice shall be provided to interested and affected parties
by the following methods:
(1) publication on the owner or operator's official business website and social media websites;
(2) posting in the post office and public places of the municipalities nearest the site under consideration, or on the
websites of these public places; and
(3) a news release by a local news organization serving the county where the site under consideration is located."

D-21
Comments Submitted on 4/15/20 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
.0531(b)(3)
I am writing on behalf of the North Carolina Chapter of the National Waste & Recycling
The Division believes the phrase "at the time of closure of the unit(s)" at the end of the sentence in existing Rule
Association (NWRA). NWRA is a trade association representing the private sector waste &
.0531(c)(2) must have been left in the rule in error, possibly when last minute changes were being made to the rules,
recycling industry. Our members include companies operating in the North Carolina. These
because existing Rule .0547 contains no closure requirements for C&DLF units that were existing before January 2007
companies play a significant role in providing the infrastructure that allows for safe and
and that remained open after June 2008, and therefore it would not be possible for those units to comply with Rule .0547
effective management of waste and recycling in the State of North Carolina.
at the time of closure of the unit(s). Rule .0547 contains the requirements for facilities existing before January 2007 to
remain open, by submitting an updated application document and set of plans that comply with the requirements of Rules
This is a major addition that requires new regulations in Rules.0531 thru .0546. Previous
.0531 - .0546, so that they can continue to operate in accordance with Rules .0531 - .0546 after 2007, in the same
definition of these sites required them to follow Rule .0547 only at a time of closure. What
manner as the units first permitted after 2007. Because all active C&D landfill units have already submitted the updated
is the intent?
application and plan documents that comply with Rules .0531 - .0546, they have all completed the requirements of
existing Rule .0547. Therefore, this rule is no longer necessary and is proposed for repeal. The proposed language in
Rule .0531(b) clarifies the applicability requirements so that they correct the error and make logical sense, and to more
clearly match what has been done and enforced by the Division since 2007.
This is also the purpose of adding the references to the applicability requirements of Session Law 2007-550 wherever a
reference to a post-2007 statute was added throughout the rules for C&D landfills, to clarify that the particular
requirement does not apply to pre-2007 C&D landfills, whereas all of the other requirements in rule do apply to pre-2007
landfills. The only C&D landfills that are or have ever been exempt from the requirements of Rules .0531 - .0546 are
those that did not receive waste after June 2008 and were closed at that time.
.0532
As published, many definitions would be repealed and replaced by definitions in 15A
The response to this comment is provided in the body of the report above.
NCAC 13B .0101 of the Subchapter. But, 15A NCAC 13B .0101 has not yet been
submitted to the Environmental Management Commission for consideration. As a result,
there is great potential for confusion or misunderstanding during the proposed gap
between adoption of this rule and the replacement definitions.
.0544(b)(1)(D)
We object to the proposed language that samples be collected "within a six-month period"
See response above to comments by NC SWANA for Rule .0544(b)(1)(D).
and recommend that to ensure accuracy, background and downgradient samples should
be collected over a period of not less than six months. This allows the owner /operator to
compensate for season fluctuations.
.0545(a)(1)
Notification for contaminants that have migrated off site, or thought to have migrated off
The requirements in this subparagraph have not been changed from the existing rule that was effective in 1998 except to
site, should only be required if the level of detection exceeds the standards in 15 NCAC
add a 30-day deadline. The introductory paragraph in Rule .0545(a) states that the following requirements apply only if
02L .0202.
there is an exceedance of the standards in 15A NCAC 02L or groundwater protection standards in Rule .0545. This
notice is necessary because it provides neighboring property owners with information concerning potential impacts to
groundwater on their property from the landfill, and the Division intends to continue enforcing this rule the same way it
has been enforced since the existing rule was effective in 1998, but adding the 30-day deadline.
.0545(a)(2)
The 30-day requirement for submitting an assessment monitoring plan should be 90 days.
Rule .0544(b)(7)(B) sets a 90-day timeframe for establishing the assessment program. The 30 day requirement was the
This was in an earlier draft of the rules at 90 days, and was in the draft recommended by
existing rule timeframe.
the Ground Water and Waste Management Committee. The proposed MSW landfill rules
keep this requirement at 90 days and this should be consistent.
The Division has corrected the inconsistency and has amended Rule .0545(a)(2) to state:
"Within -30-90 days of triggering an assessment monitoring program in accordance with
this Paragraph, the owner and operator shall ..."
.0535(e)
The proposed rules to require an application for a permit for closure and post -closure
Because a permit to operate is now required to be issued for the life -of -site, and life -of -site ends when the unit has
should be eliminated. At the time of any application for, and issuance of, a permit to
reached its highest permitted elevation or 60 years, the permit to operate expires when the unit is closed, and therefore
construct, a closure and post -closure plan is included and/or amended. To update those
does not cover the -30 year post -closure care period following closure. Because of this change, a permit application has
plans at the conclusion of the site's operating life, incorporating subsequent rules changes,
to be submitted to receive a permit to cover operations for the post -closure care period, which may incorporate the
could impose requirements that are not feasible to implement retro-actively and/ or impose
existing monitoring plan and post -closure care plan that was already developed by the permittee for the permit to operate,
which means it will incur very little cost to the permittee to produce this application. The added language will allow the

D-22
Comments Submitted on 4/15/20 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
excessive costs beyond those provided for in the financial assurance or closure reserves
Division to ensure that the post -closure care plan is up to date, including any updates required due to rule changes or
set aside by the operator.
changes to the facility situation, operations, ownership, or staff.
If there were changes made to any statutes or rules at a later date, the facility's plans would have to be revised and
resubmitted as a permit modification at the time the statute or rule changes became effective so they would not be out of
compliance with the revised statutes or rules. Plans incorporated into a permit are not "grandfathered in" when a permit is
issued so that they do not have to comply with the most recent or updated statutes rules unless the Session Law, new
statute, or new rules specifically exempt them directly.
.1602
These rules should not be adopted until the definitions in Rule .0101 of this Subchapter
The response to this comment is provided in the body of the report above.
have been adopted. If these rules are adopted without the accompanying definitions, there
is a likelihood of confusion and misinterpretation. The Environmental Management
Commission should delay the adoption of these rules until such time as Subchapter .0100
can be simultaneously adopted.
.1603(a)(2)(B)
The term "corporate structure" is not defined and is not relevant for all reasons for which a
This rule language is utilizing the statute language in G.S. 130A-294(a3)(2)b., which states in part "As used in this
permit amendment might be necessary. Also, in the event of a change of ownership, it
section, the following definitions apply: "Permit amendment" means any of the following: Any application that proposes a
should not be necessary to re -submit all the requirements of rule 15A NCAC 13B .1617
change in ownership or corporate structure of a permitted solid waste management facility." The Division is adding the
such as engineering plans, CQA plans, monitoring plan, etc.
reference to the statute in this rule and in Rule .0533(a)(2)(B) for ease of review.
.1603(a)(4)
The proposed rules to require an application for a permit for closure and post -closure
See the response to the same comment for Rule .0535(e) above.
should be eliminated. At the time of any application for, and issuance of, a permit to
construct, a closure and post -closure plan is included and/or amended. To update those
plans at the conclusion of the site's operating life, incorporating subsequent rules changes,
could impose requirements that are not feasible to implement retro-actively and/ or impose
excessive costs beyond those provided for in the financial assurance or closure reserves
set aside by the operator.
.1603(c)(6)
The proposed change to the rule could be reasonably interpreted to require a public
The guidelines are as stated in the existing rule and remain generally unchanged in the proposed rule, except that the
hearing be held on a permit, if only one party requests it. The current language provides for
language as amended to be consistent with the same language in Rule .0533(c)(6)(A) discussed above. Anyone may
a public hearing when "a significant degree of public interest in a draft permit is
request a public hearing, as stated in existing language in Rule .1603(c)(5), they shall do so in writing and state the
determined". The proposed language makes no mention of a reasonableness requirement
nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing a public hearing, and a public hearing will be held. An
in a request for such a hearing. The proposed change should be removed and the current
alternative to this requirement would be to always require a public hearing on a draft permit, whether one is requested or
language retained.
not, but the Division feels that this is generally not necessary if no one requests a hearing. Note that Rule .1603(c)(5)
states in part, "any interested person may ... request a public hearing if no hearing has already been scheduled."
Therefore, the rule language only allows a hearing to be requested if one was not already scheduled. Nothing in Rule
.1603(c) requires that more than one hearing be held.
The language was struck from Rule .1603(c)(6)(A) as follows: "The Division shall hold a public hearing on a draft
permit(s) when a hearing is requested. wheReveF OR the basis of requests, a SigRifiGaRt degree of publiG iRterest OR a draft
rormit(s) is determined." This language was struck as a result of the pre -review by Rules Review Commission staff
because it is unclear, and the phrase "significant degree of public interest" would have to be defined for the language to
remain. That is why this language was not retained when the hearing language was copied over from this rule into Rule
.0533(c) for C&D landfills when those rules were adopted in 2007. Also, it could be seen as being misleading and
somewhat contradictory to the statement in Rule .1603(c)(5) that any interested party may request a hearing. What is the
purpose of allowing someone to request a hearing only to have that request be refused because there was not an
additional arbitrary number of requests submitted? The Division considers an individual being concerned enough about
the permit to request a public hearing to be a valid reason to hold a hearing.

D-23
Comments Submitted on 4/15/20 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
G.S. 130A-294(d) states, "The Commission is authorized to adopt and the Department is authorized to enforce rules
where appropriate for public participation in the consideration, development, revision, implementation and enforcement of
any permit rule, guideline, information or program under this Article."
.1617(e)
There should be no requirement for an owner or operator to submit an application for a
See the response to the same comment for Rule .0535(e) above.
closure and post -closure permit. To update the plans required in the proposed rule at the
conclusion of the site's operating life, incorporating subsequent rules changes, could
impose requirements that are not feasible to implement retro-actively and/or impose
excessive costs beyond those provided for in the financial assurance or closure reserves
set aside by the operator.
.1618(c)(5)(C)
The requirements to advertise a public notice are stated in NCGS 130A-294(bl)(3) and
The public notice requirements in G.S. 130A-294(bl)(3) apply only to a local government when they intend to award a
should not be modified or changed in the proposed rule.
franchise for a sanitary landfill.
The Division has amended all of Rule .1618(c)(5) to clarify when the statute is applicable, to reference G.S. 130A-
294(b1)(3) where it is applicable, and what the requirements are when it is not applicable. The Division has also
amended the methods of notice in this part of the Rule to be consistent with the methods as updated in other parts of
these rules regarding public notice (to allow for public notification via website, social media, etc.).
.1622(1)
The meaning of the phrase "within the physical capacities of the available facilities" is
The Division has amended Rule .1622(1) to include only a reference to the same applicable requirement in 40 CFR
unclear.
258.10.
.1622(1)(b)
The rules should not refer to a FAA guidance document or advisory circular. Reference
The Division has amended Rule .1622(1) to include only a reference to the same applicable requirement in 40 CFR
should only be made to the Federal statute or rule that applies.
258.10.
.1623(b)(3)(B)(v
The proposed requirement to obtain a determination from the Division on establishing a
The response to this comment assumes the comment is regarding the last paragraph of Rule .1623(b)(3)(B) in the rules
i)
surface water standard is excessive for a one-time detection of a constituent or parameter
published for public comment.
without an existing standard. The standard should be the USEPA national standard and
Please see the response to the comment by NC SWANA for .1623(b)(3)(B) above.
one should not be imposed if there is no such standard.
.1624(b)(9)(C)(
The addition of the statute in the proposed rule is not objected. However, the reference of
The response to this comment assumes the comment is regarding Rule .1624(b)(10)(C)(v) in the rules published for
v)
a specific technology is objected. The statute allows for testing of a geomembrane base
public comment. The Division added the phrase "using technology such as electronic leak detection" at the specific
liner by methods approved by the Department. For all existing landfills, these methods
request of stakeholders during the stakeholder meetings held prior to the public comment period. The intent in adding
have already been allowed by permit and the use of these existing methods has been
this language was to provide an example of a type of technology that would meet the requirement. Note that wherever a
proven effective over the past 30 years.
rule states "such as..." and provides a list of examples, these are only examples. Such phrases do not provide a
comprehensive list that excludes all other options. Therefore, the addition of this language does not mean that electronic
leak detection is the only allowed technology, and the Division will continue to allow other types of technology as
determined between the Division in discussion with the permittee and incorporated into the permit.
.1626(4)
The term "explosive gases" in sub -paragraphs (i) and (ii) is more restrictive than the term
The proposed rule language also does not require regular monitoring for any explosive gas other than methane, unless
"methane gas" used in the corresponding Federal regulations at 40 CFR 258.23(a)(1).
another explosive gas such as hydrogen sulfide is discovered in the landfill vicinity, and a determination needs to be
Federal regulations do not require for the monitoring of any explosive gas other than
made on whether the gas was generated by the landfill, or another source. Currently the Division is not aware of any
methane.
other types of explosive gases that may be generated by a municipal solid waste landfill, but hydrogen sulfide may be
generated by a C&D landfill from wallboard. The Division is adding this language only to allow the Division to take action
to prevent harm to public health if there is some reason to suspect that the landfill is generating an explosive gas other
than methane. The Division expects that in most cases, no additional monitoring would be required at an MSW landfill.
In order to maintain state permit program approval, the agency is required to have rules that are at least as restrictive as
the federal regulations in 40 CFR 257 and 258, but they may be more restrictive than the federal requirements. G.S.
130A-294(e) states, "rules adopted under this section may incorporate standards and restrictions which exceed and are
more comprehensive than comparable federal regulations."
.1631(g)
We object to the addition of Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations to the existing
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning IMAC for Rules .1631(g), .1632(g), & .1633(d)
language in this rule.

D-24
Comments Submitted on 4/15/20 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
.1633(b)
We object to the proposed language that samples be collected "within a six-month period"
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
and recommend that to ensure accuracy, background and downgradient samples should
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
be collected over a period of not less than six months. This allows the owner/ operator to
See 40 CFR 258.54(b) for reference.
compensate for season fluctuations.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on these very important rules.
Both the existing Rule .1633(b) and 40 CFR 258.54(b) state that four independent samples are to be collected "...during
the first semiannual event.", which the Division has interpreted, and has been standing policy, as being during the first
six-month period. The proposed amendment replaces the term "within the first semiannual event" with "within a six-month
period" for clarity and to conform to existing protocol for baseline samples.
As stated in Rule .1633(b), the purpose for the four independent samples is "to establish baseline" for each individual well
prior to any potential influence from landfill waste, not to establish background. Rule .1632(e) addresses establishing
background water quality conditions for the MSW unit. While the baseline data collected from some wells may also be
representative of background, data collected from other newly installed wells, such as those downgradient of an existing
landfill, may not. Both sets of data in these scenarios can be considered baseline data for each separate well. Nothing in
the rule prevents additional collection of samples outside of this six-month period to account for possible seasonal
influences on baseline groundwater quality, if warranted.

D-25
Comments submitted on 4/17/20 by Alfre Wimberley, Jamie Cole, and Grady McCallie on behalf of the NC Conservation Network
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0531 - .0547
[Note — the original comment letter providing the comment below contains multiple footnotes and supporting references that are not included
The Division does not have enough information regarding leachate
and .1601 -
here — please be sure to review a copy of this comment letter in Appendix 4 of this report for supporting information]
quality and additional management options to prohibit leachate from
.1680
being released to a POTW for treatment. Emerging compounds and
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments for this set of rules. The work done by the Division of Waste Management (DWM) staff to
any contributions to the environment from landfills are concerning to
develop these rule revisions and the regulatory impact analysis is gratefully noted. Please review these comments as recommendations for 15
the Division and are under review. The Division has recently
NCAC 13B rules .1601-.1627, .1629-.1637, and .1680 rules for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) as well as .0531-.0545, and .0547 for
collaborated with MSW landfill operators in the Cape Fear River
Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfills.
basin to sample landfill leachate for emerging compounds in order
To start, we acknowledge that many of the proposed changes — which we believe leave the environment and communities at risk - were
to collect more data on this important subject. The Division
required by recent legislation establishing life -of -site permitting. Even so, we must remind DWM that protecting communities that live near the
considers any changes to the requirements for design or operation
facilities regulated by MSW & C&D landfills should be a priority. We hope our suggestions are helpful in navigating a path toward greater
of landfills related to PFAS or other emerging compounds as
community and environmental protection.
premature at this time. Existing rules require that a landfill
There are quite a few revisions that we support from the MSW landfill existing proposed revisions. To begin, the expansion of the leachate
owner/operator obtain an NPDES permit for any onsite treatment
standards to include special engineering features based on the site, a traffic study, and an environmental impact assessment are applauded. In
and discharge. Indirect onsite discharges to streams are currently
addition, the requirement for construction quality assurance reports to additionally report on all progress, troubleshooting meetings, and
prevented by requiring that waste and leachate be maintained within
evaluations of the entire liner for the site with relevant technology is a strong step forward for active monitoring.
the confines of the liner and leachate collection and removal
For the C&D landfill revisions, some of the major celebrated changes focus on the increased transparency to the monitoring State agency (ex.
system.
fact sheet prep, leachate management plan, more defined IMAC exceedance required procedures), impact assessment studies (ex. traffic and
environmental), and the change from predominantly bedrock to full bedrock locations for future siting decisions.
The Division has adopted EPA Subtitle D requirements regarding
The Commission should prohibit the direct and indirect discharge of landfill leachate to state waters.
location restrictions for MSWLFs and applies these same
In a point of strong departure from the proposed rule, we encourage the Department and the EMC to revise the required components of a
restrictions to C&DLFs. The Division has not noted any problem
leachate management plan (C&D, 15A 13B .0542(0); MSW, 15A NCAC 13B .1626(12)) to explicitly disallow the disposal of leachate through
with flooding of landfills during any of the past major storm events,
discharge at a municipal wastewater treatment plant. We understand that most landfills currently dispose of leachate by putting it directly into
though these landfills do accept most of the wastes generated from
sewer collection systems or by sending it by pumper truck to a nearby wastewater treatment plant (although the current system is not
the wind and flood damage. The Division expects that the 100-year
transparent, as the destination and volume of leachate is not recorded with any consistency in ongoing reports — it should be). We recognize
flood plain maps will be revised at some point and the Division
that we are recommending a significant change to the way the industry currently operates. We do so because the current approach presents a
would require use of the most recent maps for landfill siting. If
genuine threat to public health and the environment, one that incremental improvements to sampling and permitting will not allay.
flooding continues to worsen, the Division may consider
Here is the argument in brief. The existing leachate provisions in .0542(o) and .1626(12), proposed for re -adoption, call for plans to manage
strengthening the floodplain requirements, at least for the parts of
leachate disposal. The driver for the substantive protections in those plans are in federal law: sampling of leachate under the Resource,
the state most effected. Though there is a provision in the rule that
Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA) and EPA rules; and discharge limits at wastewater plants under the Clean Water Act. The sampling
allows fill in wetlands, this is a rare occurrence and only for fill in
required by RCRA, used to establish that leachate can be managed as 'nonhazardous', addresses a list of just 39 pollutants. There are relatively
small pockets of unavoidable wetlands. The owner/operator must
few pollutants covered by discharge limits in NPDES permits for wastewater plants. Neither approach addresses the witches' brew of
meet stringent state and federal standards to obtain permits for fill.
contaminants, including emerging contaminants, found in leachate from both C&D and MSW landfills. Moreover, this cannot be corrected by
setting standards for the additional pollutants within the brew one by one. There are too many to regulate them individually, and many have
The Division has amended Rules .0534(b)(2)(J) and .1604(b)(2)(J)
synergistic effects, and in any event many cannot be efficiently removed from wastewater by treatment technologies currently in use. Many
to remove the requirement that the Division provide 24 hours -notice
emerging contaminants are persistent in the environment, and some bioaccumulate, making dilution an unworkable management strategy over
to the owner/operator for collection of sampling and monitoring.
time.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) offer a concrete example of this problem. Peer -reviewed scientific research has repeatedly found
The Division concurs that the analysis of environmental justice is an
high concentrations of mixtures of PFAS in leachate from C&D and MSW landfills. Most recently, a study published this week finds PFAS
important consideration in the management of solid waste in North
concentrations at 15,000 parts per trillion in C&D leachate and nearly 20,000 parts per trillion in MSW leachate in Florida. Yet, the RCRA screen
Carolina. The Department has been working diligently on this topic
to determine whether leachate is hazardous does not include levels for any PFAS, individually or as a class. Wastewater plants in North
and has recently released the Public Participation Plan and the
Carolina do not have discharge limits for PFAS, and the state has not exercised its authority to bar PFAS discharges as a violation of the state's
Limited English Proficiency Language Plan to ensure that the
narrative prohibition on the discharge of toxic substances into state waters under 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a). The treatment technologies used to
agency provides meaningful outreach and engagement in the
treat wastewater at the plants that receive landfill leachate cannot treat or remove PFAS. As a result, discharge of C&D or MSW landfill leachate
decision -making processes. The Department is also assisting the
through municipal wastewater plants releases toxic PFAS to our rivers. This is not a responsible management strategy.
Division with expanding their program and developing written
For similar reasons, we recommend against the 'retention of language allowing the direct discharge to surface waters of treated landfill leachate
guidance. The Division also concurs that G.S.130A-294(a)(4)c., as
from C&D (15A NCAC 13B .0542(I)(4)) and MSW (15A NCAC 13B .1626(8)(d),(e)) landfills. The NPDES permitting framework, and the
revised by S.L. 2013-413, charges the Division in processing an
treatment technologies readily available to manage leachate for direct discharge simply are not designed to address the suite of emerging
application for a solid waste facility to deny the application if "[t]he
contaminant mixtures found in leachate. Further, federal technology -based effluent limitations for direct discharges from non -hazardous waste
cumulative impact of the proposed facility, when considered in
relation to other similar impacts of facilities located or proposed in

D-26
Comments submitted on 4/17/20 by Alfre Wimberley, Jamie Cole, and Grady McCallie on behalf of the NC Conservation Network
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
landfills, at 40 CFR 445.21, adopted in 2000, address only 9 pollutant parameters, and make no special provision for emerging, persistent, or
the community, would have a disproportionate adverse impact on a
bioaccumulating pollutants. Again, state rules should require sequestration of landfill leachate rather than dilution and discharge.
minority or low-income community...". That statutory requirement
applies to the Division's permit decision process, regardless of
The Commission should exclude new landfills from floodplains and wetlands.
specific rules for its implementation. The Division is proposing to
The current rules proposed for readoption include relatively weak prohibitions on siting landfills within the 100-year floodplain and in wetlands
add a reference to G.S. 130A-294(a)(4)c. for clarification in the
(C&D, 15A NCAC 13B .0536(4), (5); MSW, 15A NCAC 13B). These should be strengthened to prohibit encroachment into waters of the state,
proposed amendments to Rule .0203(e) regarding permit denial,
regardless of federal jurisdictional status. Allowing landfills, even under special conditions, to locate in functional wetlands compromises
and this rule is also being presented to the EMC for readoption at
groundwater quality protection measures. Moreover, the increase in frequency of more intense storms makes exclusion from the mapped 100-
the July 9, 2020 meeting. The Solid Waste Section is also working
year floodplain of very limited value. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the
to revise their website, and the revised website will include a link to
Association of State Floodplain Managers all recommend that critical infrastructure be located outside or above the 500-year floodplain. North
DEQs Public Participation Plan, Limited English Proficiency
Carolina's Office of Resiliency and Recovery, in its draft Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant for Hazard Mitigation (CDBG-
Language Plan, and Community Mapping System for permit
MIT), has said that structures built with federal disaster funds must be elevated at least two feet above the base flood elevation of the 100-year
applicants to use as a reference when drafting permit applications.
floodplain, or — and this is particularly consequential in the wake of Florence, Matthew, and Michael — at least two feet above the high water
Currently, the plans and mapping system can be found on the
mark outside of the floodplain.
Department's website at this address: https://deg.nc.gov/outreach-
education/environmental-justice.
The Commission should retain language provided for unannounced testing_
One of the largest concerns associated with the proposed revisions is the new requirement that the Department give a 24-hour notice to have
access to all parts of the facility relevant for testing. Previously, Department Staff were able to conduct testing unannounced at facilities.
Unannounced testing allows facilities to best represent daily status levels to DWR staff and for data to best indicate when corrective action
needs to be swiftly taken. A 24-hour notice could allow for preparations that would affect Staff testing results; possibly leading to significant
deviations from historic records. A 24-hour notice generally compromises the quality of monitoring that DEQ can maintain with a signaling
system in place to alert waste management facilities. We strongly recommend that this clause be removed and for Departmental operations to
continue with no requirement of warning for the testing of facilities.
The readopted landfills rules and their implementation must provide for environmental justice.
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks of regulations and policies. It is essential that the ruleset provide for the analysis of environmental justice and
specifically, the analysis of potential disparate and cumulative impacts to environmental justice communities.
The consideration of Environmental Justice is more critical than ever in the area of waste management due the already present disparities. In
our research based on the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) historical data on post -closure landfills revealed these data
conclusions:
—78% of post -closure landfills in the state are in areas with income levels below the State's average of $52,413
—91 % of post -closure landfills have >20% of the population assessed as low income
—43% of post -closure landfills are in areas with Black populations above the state average of 22.2%
No specific demographics should be experiencing negative environmental at any higher rates than other groups. In NC General Statute §130A-
294(a)(4) charges DWM, in processing an application for a solid waste facility, to deny the application if "[t]he cumulative impact of the proposed
facility, when considered in relation to other similar impacts of facilities located or proposed in the community, would have a disproportionate
adverse impact on a minority or low-income community...". That statutory requirement applies to the agency whether or not the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) rules governing any particular solid waste permit process provide for an equity analysis. However, if the rules
do not provide an equity analysis, the agency's record of decision will not include the basic information necessary for the agency to make a non -
arbitrary decision on the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. §130A-294(a)(9).
North Carolina constitutional requirements underpin the policy decision to build consideration of equity into the permit process. North Carolina
Constitution Article 1, Section 19, the Law of the Land provision, calls both for `equal protection of the laws for all North Carolinians', and no
state `discrimination by race or color'. Without analyzing equity during rulemaking and permitting decisions, the EMC and the agency cannot
guarantee an actual outcome on the ground that is free of discrimination based on race or color, or that assures all North Carolinians equal
protection.
In addition, we recommend that the proposed rules clearly call for the use of DEQ's new Community Mapping Tool, a non -regulatory, analytical
tool that can serve as a data source during the permitting process. This tool can assist DWM in building a meaningful analysis of disparate and

D-27
Comments submitted on 4/17/20 by Alfre Wimberley, Jamie Cole, and Grady McCallie on behalf of the NC Conservation Network
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
cumulative impacts into the permitting process, something that is needed for the agency to be able to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-
294(a)(4)(c). Permit language should include any conditions that may be attached to the permit to avoid or mitigate those impacts. We also
recommend that DWM staff develop a clear and concise procedure for this analysis and work with applicants where needed.
Conclusion
We urge the Department of Environmental Quality and, specifically, the Division of Waste Management to deeply consider these
recommendations and implement them in further revisions of the rules and permits for MSWLFs.

D-28
Comments Submitted on 4/16/2020 by John Townson on behalf of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.1634(b)(3)(c) &
This email is sent as Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune's official comment on the proposed rule
Response to Comments:
.1634(f)
changes described in your email notice of 13 February 2020.
Comment 1 a:
Our primary concern is that the proposed changes consider GW sampling results that are above
The response to this comment assumes the comment is regarding Rule .1634(b)(3)(C) in the rules published for
background concentrations to be exceedances (for constituents without 2L or other standards).
public comment.
Background concentrations are usually well below 2L standards, and it is very normal to see
results that are above the background concentrations. Per .1634(f), exceedances in two
The proposed Rule .1634(b)(3)(C) is essentially the same as existing Rule .1634(g) with only minor text revision for
consecutive sampling events (semiannual) trigger an Assessment of Corrective Measures
clarification, so the Division is not proposing any substantive revisions to this rule. The requirements of this rule also
(ACM), which appears to be a lengthy and costly process involving public meetings and
mirror that of the requirements in 40 CFR 258.55(h) from which it is based, and which sets requirements for when
comments, remedial actions, corrective action plans, and so on.
background shall be the groundwater protection standard (GWPS) for the site. Therefore, background established
per these rules is a valid GWPS.
.1634(f) text: "If one or more constituents are detected for two consecutive sampling events
above background, the groundwater standards established in 15A NCAC 02L .0202, or the
Where there is no 15A NCAC 02L standard, MCL, or public water quality standard, the background concentration
groundwater protection standards established in accordance with Subparagraphs (b)(3) and
established per Rules .1631(a)(1) and .1632(e) is the GWPS. If this background is higher than any established
(b)(4) of this Rule, the owner or operator shall initiate Assessment of Corrective Measures in
GWPS, then the background is the GWPS. While background is not a health -based standard, any statistical
accordance with Rule .1635 of this Section within 90 days."
increase over the background GWPS would indicate a likely release from the landfill to the groundwater. At any
time, an alternative health -based GWPS may be established in accordance with Subparagraph (4) of this rule to
Comments:
replace the background GWPS if necessary.
15A NCAC 13B .1634 Assessment Monitoring Program
Comment 2a:
15A NCAC 13B .1635 Assessment of Corrective Measures (ACM)
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at
15A NCAC 13B .1636 Selection of Remedy
least as restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
15A NCAC 13B .1637 Implementation of Corrective Action Program (CAP)
See 40 CFR 258.58(g) for reference.
The requirements in this rule are based on, and must be consistent with, the requirements in 40 CFR 258.55(g),
We would like to request that .1634(b)(3)(c) and .1634(f) be revised as follows:
which triggers the assessment of corrective measures (ACM) after any assessment monitoring event.
1. .1 634(b)(3)(c)
Comment 2b:
a. Request deletion. Using a background concentration of a constituent as a GW protection
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at
standard would essentially make it an "alternative GW protection standard". Therefore, it would
least as restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
need to satisfy the criteria outlined in .1634(b)(4). Since a background concentration is not a
See 40 CFR 258.58(h) and (i) for reference.
health -based level, and does not meet these criteria, it would not be a valid GW protection
standard. If there is a concern with a constituent that has no 2L or other GW protection standard,
The requirements in this rule are based on, and must be consistent with, the requirements in 40 CFR 258.55(h) and
the Division can develop a valid alternative GW protection standard for that constituent using
(i) - see response to Comment 1 a above.
criteria in .1634(b)(4).
The Division has amended Rule .1634(f) to be consistent with the same assessment of corrective measures
2..1634(f)
requirements in Rule .1635(a) to state:
a. Increase the trigger of initiating an ACM to four consecutive sampling events (exceedances of
"If one or more Appendix II constituents are detected for two consecutive sampling events above either baGkgreund,
the same constituent(s)). Observing detections during only two consecutive sampling events is
the groundwater ug ality standards established in 15A NCAC 02L .0202, er-the groundwater protection standards
not an adequate amount of time to indicate a significant trend or issue.
established in accordance with Subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this Rule, or an approved background
groundwater protection standard established in accordance with Subparagraph (b)(6) of this Rule, the owner or
operator shall initiate Assessment of Corrective Measures in accordance with Rule .1635 of this Section. SeGtoon
b. Remove "detections above background" as a trigger. 2L and other GW protection standards
are established for groundwater protection. Therefore, there would be no impetus to initiate an
within 90 days."
ACM unless there were consecutive detections above the 2L or other GW protection standards.
Response to Questions:
Questions:
Question 1:
1. Regarding .1634(f): Is the permittee expected to begin ACM/CAP requirements after receipt of
The owner/operator is required to initiate ACM without direction from the Division. Rule .1634(f) states "the owner or
direct instructions from NCDEQ, or does NCDEQ expect these actions to be initiated without
operator shall initiate Assessment of Corrective Measures in accordance with Rule .1635 of this Section within 90
explicit direction from NCDEQ?
days." The rules as written are self -implementing.

D-29
Comments Submitted on 4/16/2020 by John Townson on behalf of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
2. Is there an exception for closed landfills?
Question 2:
Any landfill permitted under the .1600 Rules, whether active or closed, is subject to these rules. Closed or active
3. When would the compliance deadline for these amendments be?
landfills permitted under other landfill rules, such as .0500 rules, are not subject to the .1600 rules.
4. If there are multiple constituents with consecutive exceedances, is a separate ACM required
Question 3:
for each constituent? Or can one ACM address all constituents' exceedances?
The response to this comment assumes the comment is regarding compliance deadlines for the Assessment of
Corrective Measures in Rule .1635(a) in the rules published for public comment.
5. If consecutive exceedances of a different constituent occur while a CAP is underway that was
As stated in the proposed rule, the owner or operator shall initiate ACM "Within 90 days of finding that one or more
initiated because of previous consecutive exceedances, should another ACM be initiated? Or
Appendix 11 constituents exceeded, for two consecutive sampling events....". The proposed rule further states
would the new constituent exceedances be "addressed" by the already active CAP?
"Such an assessment shall be completed within 120 days or as approved by the Division." The proposed rule added
"or as approved by the Division" to the existing rule language.
6. Does an ACM need to be initiated for consecutive background exceedances?
Question 4:
7. Does it have to be a consecutive exceedance of the same constituent, or if there is an
In the case of multiple groundwater exceedances, one Assessment of Corrective Measures can address all
exceedance of one constituent, then during the next sampling event there is an exceedance of
documented exceedances in one document.
one different constituent, does this initiate an ACM?
Question 5:
8. Will the CAP continue on in perpetuity if there is no period of three consecutive years where
If constituents not originally addressed in the ACM or CAP are detected above the groundwater standards while
there are no constituent exceedances?
corrective action is underway, the current corrective action plan can be amended to add or address the newly
detected constituent.
Question 6:
If a background value has been approved as the groundwater protection standard (GWPS) for the site, then any
exceedance over that site -specific background value would constitute an exceedance of the GWPS. GWPS are
established per .1634(3), (4), (5), and (6). In some cases, background values will be the approved GWPS. If no
GWPS has been established prior to one of the Appendix 1/11 constituents being detected, then the owner/operator
can either use the approved background established per .1631(a)(1) and .1632; or the Division can establish a
health -based GWPS per. 1 634(b)(4); or the owner can request the Division approve a background level higher than
GWPS established via 2L, MCL, or health -based.
Question 7:
As stated in Rule .1635(a), any consecutive exceedance of any Appendix II constituent, whether it's the same
constituent or not, initiates the assessment of corrective measures.
Question 8:
Rule .1637(f) outlines the requirements for a when a corrective action remedy is considered complete, including
three consecutive years with no groundwater standard exceedances. The rules also include several possibilities
where corrective action can be ended prior to meeting the completion standards in Rule .1637(f). These are:
1) the Division determines active remediation is not necessary in accordance with the requirements in Rule
.1636(e);
2) if compliance with the corrective action requirements in .1636(b) cannot be practically achieved and if all the
requirements of .1637(d) are met; or
3) the site meets the requirements for a risk -based closure in accordance with G.S. 130A-310.65-310.77.

D-30
Comments Submitted on 2/24/20 by David Lambert, Director, Iredell County Solid Waste
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.1604(b)(2)(J)(iii)
Inspections — Includes practices and equipment
The proposed rule language includes the phrase "that are required or regulated by the facility permit or the rules of this
1. How do you legally define a practice; does it mean best practices, industry standards?
Subchapter" that is intended to narrow the focus of the inspection. The meaning of "practice" would be the normal and
2. "Monitoring and control equipment" is a bit open-ended. Could this be made more
customary meaning. As an example, the Division has no intent to perform DOT safety inspections of facility vehicles but
specific? How could Solid Waste Specialist possibly be trained to inspect and verify the
would make sure that the facility had proper equipment available to compact waste.
multitude of brands and devices encountered in the field. Would they be qualified to verify
calibrations or settings?
.1604(b)(2)(J)(iv)
1. What is the impetus for secondary sampling by the Department if required sampling is
Response to Item #1
done by independent engineers or geologists on an approved schedule and tested by a
Sampling or monitoring by the Department would be conducted during a public health situation or if the owner or operator
certified lab?
of a landfill can no longer financially operate and/or the landfill abruptly closes and the Department is required to use the
funds set aside for financial assurance.
2. How will the sampling or monitoring of groundwater and gases be conducted? Will this
supersede the requirements already in place by Water Quality and Air Quality? The
Response to Item #2
reporting requirements for Air Quality are very stringent and it is unlikely Solid Waste
If the Department conducts sampling or monitoring, it would be conducted in accordance with the approved Water Quality
Specialist would exceed what's already required elsewhere.
Monitoring Plan and/or the approved Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan.
3. Finally, if the Department requires additional sampling conducted by them or a split
Response to Item #3
sample; who will be responsible for payment, the permittee or the Department?
The Department would be responsible for payment for the samples collected by the Department, but the owner/operator
would still be responsible for samples collected by the owner/operator.
.1604(b)(2)(N)
Additional Solid Waste Facilities and activities seem to be used interchangeably here. I
Ancillary solid waste management facilities and activities are often permitted in conjunction with a MSWLF. They include
assume this mean a disposal unit or building used in storing or processing waste however
facilities such as HHW collection facilities and YW mulching and composting operations, as well as activities such as
the next sentence states any "proposed additional activities". Could that mean anything
scrap tire collection, white goods collection, electronics collection, and collection of household garbage from homeowners
installed such as a gas vent or French drain to correct an immediate problem? What does
at on -site convenience centers. These activities should not impede operation or monitoring of the MSWLF. This is
activities mean?
addressed in the facility and operations plan.
.1617(a)(1)(G),
Is the environmental compliance history only relevant if you're a corporate owner or does
These are two separate but related requests. The environmental compliance history review (CHR) for applicants and
(b)(3), and (c)(6)
it apply to municipally owned facilities as well? If applied to municipal facilities which may
permit holders has been required by G.S. § 130A-295.3 since 2007 and applies to both municipal and corporate owners.
operate independently of the other units of government is environmental compliance
The Division has been requesting compliance history by letter to the applicant following application submittal. The
specific to the solid waste department or could it apply to the other departments of that
proposed rule seeks to have the environmental compliance history submitted with the application and avoid the need for
specific municipality?
a separate request.
For both municipal and corporate owners, the review includes history of compliance with all environmental permits and
not just those issued for solid waste management facilities. For applicants that are not federal, State, or local
governments, the Division asks for ownership structure because the review must include compliance history for parents,
subsidiaries and affiliates of the applicant. Ownership structure is also required when establishing the permitted entity and
in establishing financial assurance.
The Division has amended this Rule, and also Rule .0535 to list the environmental compliance history first as applying to
all applicants, and the ownership organization chart as a separate item in each list, and clarified that an ownership
organization chart is only required for applicants that are not federal, State, or local governments.
.1618(c)(1)(E)
It's doubtful if any facility would have the legal authority to control the transportation
The rule does not require the applicant to control the waste transportation routes after the landfill is constructed, it only
routes haulers might choose. Even if legal the enforcement would be impossible.
requires that the applicant to include the possible or expected waste transportation routes in the regional characterization
study as a part of the site study. The requirements in this Part have not been changed from the existing rule, therefore the
Division does not intend to enforce this rule in any way different than it has been enforced since the existing rule was
effective in 1993. Also, please see the applicable requirements in G.S. 130A-295.5 regarding the traffic study
.1627(d)(3)
This seems a particularly onerous and expensive regulation for facilities who have already
Current post -closure care plans incorporated into the permits and approved by the Division per existing rule include the
in good faith provided engineered closing plans which were approved by the Department.
requirement for annual inspections by the owner's engineer and include cost estimates for this service. With the proposed

The Solid Waste Specialist already conducts regular routine inspections of closed
rule change, the Division is only asking that facilities report the results of these inspections to the Division every five years
facilities. With this being the case there is already a mechanism in place to remediate any
rather that at the end of 30 years and to have the inspection certified by a professional engineer. The rule change would
shortcomings.
allow the Division to monitor the integrity and performance of the cap, leachate management systems, and environmental
monitoring systems, so that improvements or minor tweaks to the cap and systems can be made throughout the post
closure care period for optimum performance and so that potential releases to the environment can be eliminated or
minimized, instead of discovering at the end of the 30- year period that clean-up/remediation actions or larger or
somewhat more expensive changes need to be made to the cap or systems because the systems were not operated and
maintained properly over that 30-year period. The submittal of the five-year certifications will also aid the Division in any
decision to decrease the post closure care period or to decrease or suspend leachate management activities as allowed
by Rules .1627(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2)(A). Also, the existing rule requires a professional engineer to certify post -closure care
at the end of the thirty-year post closure period, but owners and operators have expressed concern to the Division that it
is unlikely that the same engineer will be available for the entire thirty-year period to provide certification at the end of
post -closure care for work completed throughout the entire post -closure care period. The amendment will reduce the
chances of having gaps in certification by a professional engineer due to staffing or other changes.
Comments Submitted on 3116/20 by Deanna Coble Martin, Coble's Sandrock, Inc.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0531-.0547,
This letter is in opposition of the Published Rulemaking Notice and Information including
While the agency understands that regulatory requirements do impose a cost to landfill facility owners and operators,
.1601-.1680
the Proposed Rule Text and the two Regulatory Impact and Fiscal Analysis documents for
G.S. 130A-294(b) states in part: "The Commission shall adopt and the Department shall enforce rules to implement a
the following rules: 15A NCAC 13B .0531-.0547 and Section .1600 for C&D and MSW
comprehensive statewide solid waste management program. The rules shall be consistent with applicable State and
Landfills; and Rules .0546, .1105, .1111, .1628, and new Section .1800 for Financial
federal law; and shall be designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; preserve the environment; and provide
Assurance for all Solid Waste Management Facilities. These changes are an overreach
for the greatest possible conservation of cultural and natural resources. Rules for the establishment, location, operation,
and unnecessary.
maintenance, use, discontinuance, recordation, post -closure care of solid waste management facilities also shall be
based upon recognized public health practices and procedures, including applicable epidemiological research and
Many landfills are private and some public landfills are located in small, sparsely
studies; hydrogeological research and studies; sanitary engineering research and studies; and current technological
populated counties. This change in the rules would put many out of business. All
development in equipment and methods."
permitted landfills are regulated, tested and monitored. These rules would cause the
increase in the number of illegal, unregulated landfills if the permitted ones are not able to
The rules in 15A NCAC 13B are required to be readopted by the EMC in accordance with G.S. 15013-21.3A by the
operate. Imagine the pollution the world would have if there were no regulated landfills. I
deadline established by the Rules Review Commission of April 30, 2021. A response to the comments regarding the
understand, somewhat, of your reasons for this. However, I believe it would be more
statutory requirement for financial assurance for solid waste management facilities was provided in the hearing officer's
beneficial to support the permitted landfills rather than work against them.
report for the rules regarding financial assurance that were adopted at the May 7, 2020 EMC meeting. As this comment
Another reason this is a bad idea is that the money the landfills are spending in securing
did not identify any amendments of concern, or request that any changes be made to the language in the proposed rules,
financial assurance bonds, they could hire more workers. In turn, that would help the
no changes were made to the proposed rules as a result of this comment.
economy more by decreasing unemployment.
Comment Submitted on 4/16/2020 by Cama Merritt
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0531 - .0547
1 understand that you are receiving comments on the rules governing disposal sites for
Emerging compounds and any contributions to the environment from landfills are concerning to the Division and are
construction and demolition waste. I also understand that NC rules regarding PFAS
under review. The Division has recently collaborated with MSW landfill operators in the Cape Fear River basin to sample
leakage need to be tightened. Please accept my comment that the rule to be adopted
landfill leachate for emerging compounds in order to collect more data on this important subject. The Division considers
protect our ground water from the leakage of these dangerous chemical compounds.
any changes to the requirements for design or operation of landfills related to PFAS or other emerging compounds as
premature at this time.

ia%
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0531(b)(3)
This is a major addition to all permitted facilities that requires new regulations in Rules
Please see the response to this same comment from NC NWRA regarding Rule .0531(b)(3) above.
.0531 through .0546. Previous definition of these sites required them to follow Rule .0547
only at time of closure (see deleted text in (2) above. No cost was provided to account for
this impact to facilities.
.0532
Should the operating record be defined?
The definitions for areas susceptible to mass movement, unstable area, and karst terrains are existing language. The
(Areas susceptible to mass movement) redundant with unstable areas and karst
term used in the rule language that needs to be defined is "unstable areas", which includes three examples. "Karst
In .0101(31) leachate defined slightly differently than in Article 9 Chapter 130A Definitions
terrains' and "areas susceptible to mass movement" were defined because the terms were used in the definition of
(16a)
"unstable area" as two of the three examples.
The definition for leachate was removed from Rule .0101, as presented to the EMC at the July 2020 meeting, so that the
only definition for this term is found in G.S. 130A-290.
.0533(c)(2)
We should have a timeline in which the DEQ must review the draft permit.
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0533(c)(2) above.
.0533(c)(3)(F)
Clarify this information is to contact a Division representative
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0533(c)(3)(F) above.
.0533(c)(6)(A)
Please clarify on who can request. Does there need to be a valid reason to request the
Note that Rule .0533(c)(5) states in part, "any interested person may ... request a public hearing if no hearing has already
hearing?
been scheduled." The guidelines stated in existing Rule .0533(c)(5) and (6) are not proposed to be amended. Rule
.0533(c)(5) is clear in stating that anyone may request a public hearing, that they shall do so in writing and state the
nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing a public hearing, and a public hearing will be held. An
alternative to this requirement would be to always require a public hearing on a draft permit, whether one is requested or
not, but the Division feels that this is generally not necessary if no one requests a hearing. The term "valid reason" would
need to be defined and clarified before any such provision as suggested in this comment could be added to the rule for
the rule to comply with the APA. The Division considers an individual being concerned enough about the permit to
request a public hearing to be a valid reason to hold a hearing, so no further clarification in the rule is needed.
G.S. 130A-294(d) states, "The Commission is authorized to adopt and the Department is authorized to enforce rules
where appropriate for public participation in the consideration, development, revision, implementation and enforcement of
any permit rule, guideline, information or program under this Article."
.0533(c)(6)(B)
Put a time limit on how long DEQ can take to publish the end date. For example: "The
The Division has amended Rule .0533(c)(6)(B) to state:
Division shall publish the end date of the extended comment period on the Divisions
"The Division shall publish the end date of the extended comment period on the Division's website prior to the end of the
website within 10-days following the public hearing."
existing public comment period."
.0534(b)(2)(J)
Inspection and Entry" Must be restricted to normal operating hours Line 33 - Need
The requirement in this Part has not been changed from the existing rule, therefore the Division does not intend to
clarification: What equipment, practices and monitoring? Will DEQ inspectors be required
enforce this rule in any way different than it has been enforced since the existing rule was effective in 2007. Under
to become certified by the manufacturers for the different equipment on site? — this
existing rule, Division staff already conduct inspections during normal operating hours.
sentence is convoluted.
The proposed rule language includes the phrase "that are required or regulated by the facility permit or the rules of this
Subchapter" that is intended to narrow the focus of the inspection. The meaning of "practice" would be the normal and
customary meaning. As an example, the Division has no intent to perform DOT safety inspections of facility vehicles but
would make sure that the facility had proper equipment available to compact waste.
.0534(b)(2)(J)
1. line 4 related to monitoring: Include "Sample results must be submitted to the owner
Response to #1
within 7 days of receipt and the owner shall have the opportunity to comment prior to
The Department will continue to make the determination, based on the particular circumstances on a case -by -case basis,
uploading to laserfische or any public portal."
when the Department's sample results will be provided to the owner or operator and when it is appropriate to upload the
2. line 4 include after ambient air "to the extent authorized by G.S. 130A Article 9.
results to the online document portal.
3. line 8 & 9 — This sentence should be deleted. It should not be in rule that DEQ can
request photos at any time. Final use? Images obtained by DEQ should not be for
Response to #2
marketing or distribution
The Division has amended Rule .0534(b)(2)(J) to state:
"...gases, gas condensates, or ambient air to the extent authorized by Chapters 113A, 130A, and 143 of the General
Statutes and the rules adopted thereunder."

D-33
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
Response to #3
This is existing language that has been in the Rule .0534(b)(2)(J) since the rule was effective in 2007, and has also been
in Rule .1604(b)(2)(J) since the rule was effective in 1993. Division staff take and request photos under existing rule in
order to determine or verify compliance and substantiate enforcement actions as a part of routine compliance inspections
and complaint investigations.
.0534(b)(2)(K)
Waste Exclusions — For C&D constructed with liner, can include C&D like material, non-
Neither the requirements in this Part nor those of Rule .0542 have been changed from existing rule. The waste
putrescible bulky waste, & other items that generally don't break down easily. Also, ability
exclusions remain the same. Rule .0542(d) addresses sludges. The Division does not see a need to repeat the
to receive sludge — similar note in .0542
requirements here at Rule .0534(b)(2)(K).
.0535(e)
Is this part of the life of site permit? Clarification needed.
Because a permit to operate is now required to be issued for the life -of -site, and life -of -site ends when the unit has
Using the term "Post -closure permit" is a problem. This language is confusing because it
reached its highest permitted elevation or 60 years, the permit to operate expires when the unit is closed, and therefore
implies an owner cannot close their facility of their own free will.
does not cover the —30 year post -closure care period following closure. Because of this change, a permit application has
GS 130A-295.3 does not require this information for closure permit. It only requires this
to be submitted to receive a permit to cover operations for the post -closure care period, which may incorporate the
information for a new permit or permit amendment. Please modify this language.
existing monitoring plan and post -closure care plan that was already developed by the permittee for the permit to operate,
which means it will incur very little cost to the permittee to produce this application. The added language will allow the
Division to ensure that the post -closure care plan is up to date, including any updates required due to rule changes or
changes to the facility situation, operations, ownership, or staff. There is no reference to G.S. 130A-295.3 or its
requirements in the proposed rule language. This Division believes comment may have been in regard to a previous rule
d raft.
.0536(c)(1)(E)
Does this present a homeland security safety issue?
Since a landfill cannot be constructed if no determination can be made on the distance to potable wells and public water
supplies, this information must be submitted in an application. This may require that the applicant submit a specific
request to the local or state agency that can provide this information for the proposed landfill location. The Division cannot
remove the requirement for this information just because it is not as easily obtained as the rest of the information in the
permit application. If the agency that can provide this information is refusing to supply it to the applicant, the applicant
could ask them to supply it to the Division directly, or the Division can work with the applicant to resolve the matter on a
case -by -case basis if it occurs.
.0537(c)(1)
Eliminate all reference to 5 years of operating capacity in the rule. This is inconsistent with
With the life -of -site permitting requirements, the Division no longer requires that an applicant limit a permit to construct
the intent of Life of Site rule.
application to a five-year phase. However, the Division understands that not all facility owners will want to request a
permit to construct that covers the entire 60-year period and will want to continue phased permitting, phased construction,
and phased operation. The Division believes that the proposed language will accommodate both those that wish to
continue the phased approach and those that wish to permit the full extent of the facility.
.0537(d)(1)(d)
Please define phase of develop related to life of site, removing references to 5-year
See the response to the comment on Rule .0537(c)(1) above.
increments
.0537(e)(4)
(Traffic Study) needs to be included in financial impact
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0537(e)(4) above regarding the fiscal
G.S. 130A-295.5 - is sanitary language intended to be inclusive of C&D? Is this
impact.
consistent throughout the SWMA and draft regulation?
C&D landfills are sanitary landfills because they meet the definition of a sanitary landfill in G.S. 130A-290, and are not
exempted from this definition or from the requirements for sanitary landfills anywhere in Chapter 130A or 15A NCAC 13B.
Additional clarification can be found in G.S. 130A-295.6 "Additional requirements for sanitary landfills", paragraph (e)
which states in part, "A sanitary landfill for the disposal of construction and demolition debris waste shall be constructed
with a liner system..." G.S. 130A-295.60) does specifically exempt land clearing and inert debris landfills from these
additional requirements for sanitary landfills, which might imply that the statutes do not consider a land clearing and inert
debris landfill to be a sanitary landfill, but construction and demolition debris landfills are clearly absent from that
exemption.

D-34
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
To be consistent with the statutory definitions, requirements, and exemptions, the Division is clarifying what types of
landfills qualify as sanitary landfills in the proposed revisions to Rule .0101, which is being presented to the EMC at the
July 2020 meeting for approval to go to public comment. These landfills are municipal solid waste landfills, constructions
and demolitions debris landfills, and industrial solid waste landfills. Note that if the statutes did not state that C&D landfill
was a sanitary landfill, then these landfills would not be subject to the requirement for a life -of -site permit, and would be
required to continue submitting a permit application every five years in the same manner as LCID landfills, treatment and
processing facilities, compost facilities, and incinerators.
.0537(e)(5)
(Study of Environmental Impacts) additional cost — needs to be included in financial
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0537(e)(5) above.
impact
.0538(a)(2)
Throughout this rule either define `site' or replace with `Landfill unit' or other more
The Division has amended Rule .0538(a) to define `site' for the purposes of the site hydrogeologic report by amending the
descriptive term
second sentence in this Paragraph to state:
"An investigation is required to shall assess the geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the parcel on which the
C&DLF unit is proposed to be constructed (hereinafter "site") to determine the suitability of the site for solid
waste management activities,..."
The Division has also amended Rule .0538(b)(1) and (b)(2)(J) to consistently use the terms "site" or "C&DLF unit", and
has also added a definition for "C&DLF unit" to Rule .0532 to state:
"(8) "Construction and demolition debris landfill unit" or "C&DLF unit" means a discrete area of land or an excavation that
receives C&D solid waste, and is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, infection well, or waste pile, as
defined under 40 CFR Part 257.2. Such a C&DLF unit may be publicly or privately owned; and may be located at a
municipal solid waste landfill facility, an industrial solid waste landfill facility, or other waste management facility."
.0538(a)(4)(E)
Define dispersive characteristics. This is generic and it is unclear how this is unique from
See response above to the comment for Rule .0538(a)(4)(e) by NC SWANA.
the other specific parameters listed.
.0538(b)
Recommend remove "engineering plan that is required to be submitted in" The design
The Division has amended Rule .0535(a)(1) containing permit to construct application requirements to add a new line
hydro report is an extensive report (generally a 5-inch binder of information) that is
item as (B) to state:
currently submitted as an appendix within the Permit to Construct Application, not the
Engineering Plan. This report does not fit in the section and is two substantial to be
"a design hydrogeologic report prepared in accordance with Rule .0538(b) of this Section;"
submitted as an appendix to an appendix. It will provide for less confusion when
The Division has amended Rule .0538(b) to state:
searching for documents in the future to let this section be on its own.
"A geological and hydrogeological report shall be the 8RgiReeFiRg plan that is Feq iiFe d t ho submitted in an
application for a Permit to Construct in accordance with Rule .0535(a)(1) of this Section.
.0538(b)(2)(J)
Remove cement in line 23 related to type of grout
The Division has amended Rule .0538(b)(2)(J) to state:
"At the time of abandonment, all piezometers within the C&DLF landfill unit footprint area shall be overdrilled to the full
depth of the boring or to the top of bedrock, whichever is encountered first, prior to ^^m^^+ 9F beRtGRite grout placement."
.0539(f)
DEQ please clarify the applicability of SL 2007-550:
Session law accompanies a bill when enacted and often contains requirements that are not in the actual statute
This section becomes effective 1 August 2007 and applies to any application for a permit
language. S.L. 2007-550 contains the effective date and applicability of the newer C&DLF liner requirement at G.S. 130A-
for a solid waste management facility that is pending on that date. To the extent that G.S.
295.6(e) which is why it was important to add the language stating "in accordance with the effective date and applicability
130A-295.6, as enacted by this section, imposes requirements that are more stringent
set forth in S.L. 2007-550" following the statute reference in the rule. The statute language in G.S. 130A-295.6(e) and (h)
than those in effect prior to 1 August 2007, the more stringent requirements do not apply
has required liners and leachate collection systems for C&D landfills since the statute was effective in 2007, and the
to:
Division has been enforcing the statute language since that time, according to the applicability stated in Session Law
(1) An amendment, modification, or other change to a permit for a landfill issued on or
2007-550 (the applicability language quoted in this comment can be found in Section 9.(b) of the Session Law). The
before 1 June 2006.
addition of the reference to the statute requirement in rule is for ease of review only, and changes nothing in the existing
(2) A permit for a horizontal or vertical expansion of the landfill permitted on or before 1
requirements for these landfills, or the Division's enforcement of those requirements.
June 2006.

IM11
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
(3) A permit to construct a new landfill within the facility boundary identified in the facility
plan of a landfill permitted on or before 1 June 2006.
(4) A permit to operate a new landfill if a permit to construct the new landfill was issued
on or before 1 June 2006.
(5) A permit for a sanitary landfill used only to dispose of waste generated by a coal-fired
generating unit that is owned or operated by an investor -owned utility subject to the
requirements of G.S. 143-215.107D.
(6) A permit for a sanitary landfill determined to be necessary by the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources in order to respond to an imminent hazard to public
health or a natural disaster
.0540(9)
Same comment as 15A NCAC 13B .0539(f) Please clarify the applicability of SL 2007-500
Session Law 2007-550 establishes the effective date and applicability of the newer requirements for maximum capacity,
(see above comment in .0539).
height, and disposal area in G.S. 130A-295.6(i), which is why it was important to add the language stating "in accordance
with the effective date and applicability set forth in S.L. 2007-550" following the statute reference in the rule. The statute
language in G.S. 130A-295.6(i) has required that C&D landfills not exceed the maximum capacity, height, and disposal
area since the statute was effective in 2007, and the Division has been enforcing the statute language since that time,
according to the applicability stated in Session Law 2007-550 (the applicability language can be found in Section 9.(b) of
the Session Law). The addition of the reference to the statute requirement in rule is for ease of review only, and changes
nothing in the existing requirements for these landfills, or the Division's enforcement of those requirements.
.0542(d)
Include "unless approved by the division" following disposal at the end of the first
Wastewater treatment sludge does not meet the definition of C&D solid waste and is not allowed for disposal.
sentence. Since C&D will be lined, and current single lined MSW is allowed to accept this
waste, it should be an option on a site specific basis.
.0542(e)(11)
Remove sludge or edit to include approved by Division (see comment .0542(d))
See response to the comment for Rule .0542(d) directly above.
.0542(e)(15)
Is the intent to limit the non C&D waste or to limit these specific items. The intent of this
The requirement in this Part has not been changed from the existing rule, therefore the Division does not intend to
item is unclear, therefore may be interpreted differently in the future.
enforce this rule in any way different than it has been enforced since the existing rule was effective in 2007. The intent is
to state that these types of waste shall not be accepted unless they are commingled with and cannot be easily separated
from C&D waste.
.0542(e)(17)
Please clarify which agency this may be to prevent future complications with
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0542(e)(17) above.
inappropriately certified locations
.0542(f)(1)
One-half acre is too small for a work area; this is a challenge due to equipment and
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0542(f)(1) above.
causes safety and operations issues. Recommend removing the size restriction.
.0542(m)
60 and 90 days may not be enough time for scheduling and work completion, depending
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0542(m) above.
on the season.
.0542(n)((1)(A)
There is not always a certification, maybe say just say training, this wording is slightly
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0542(n)(1)(A) above.
unclear
.0544(b)(1)(B)
Remove any references to the review boundary. It adds confusion and provides for
The Division has amended Rule .0544(b)(1)(B) to state:
inconsistencies of rule interpretation.
"represent the quality of groundwater passing the review boundary and the relevant point of compliance as approved by
the Division. The downgradient monitoring system shall be installed at[° review boundary is established around any
the relevant point of compliance so
as to ensure detection of groundwater contamination in the uppermost aquifer. The relevant point of compliance shall be
established no more than 250 feet from a waste boundary, or shall be at least 50 feet within the facility property
boundary, whichever point is closer to the waste boundary. In determining the review bo Rdary and the relevant point of
compliance,..."

IM11.
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0544(b)(1)(D)
For constituents that are more affected by seasonal fluctuations, a true representation of
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning Rule .0544(b)(1)(D).
background concentrations may not be captured in the data to be utilized for statistical
background comparisons in only six months. Recommend changing to 12 months.
.0544(b)(1)(D)
Additional 4 individual samples will be a direct cost increase.
The fiscal impacts of this change were discussed in the approved fiscal note that was published for comment on the
Department's website during the comment period here: https://deci.nc.gov/documents/15a-ncac-13b-0531-0547-1105-
1111-1600-and-1800. (See Page C-13)
.0544(b)(1)(D)
Recommend remove references to IMAC values.
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
1. Interim maximum allowable concentrations should not be included in the regulations as
they have not been through an official rule making process, have not been reviewed by
the public or the applicable voting bodies, there is not readily available information related
to the history of these parameters, what sites they were originated for and the initial intent
behind these numbers and parameters. There is a process to establish 2L Standards and
site specific standards that is extensive and will be more accurate, thoughtful and
representative.
2. Using a interim maximum allowable concentration convolutes the issue and potentially
creates huge expenses in situations with no potential harm and where the extreme
actions frequently requested by SWS are not warranted.
3. Facilities could be required to initiate assessment monitoring and/or corrective action
for IMAC exceedances that could no longer be exceedances after the adoption of the
proposed groundwater standard
.0544(b)(4)
Recommend remove references to IMACs. See comment for .0544(b)(1)(D).
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
.0544(b)(7)
Recommend remove all references to IMACs See comment for .0544(b)(1)(D).
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
.0544(b)(7)(A)
Recommend removing this item and having language indicating discussion should be
Conditions written into the facility's operating permit require the facility to notify the Division when the owner or operator
provided in the semi-annual report related to constituents detected in concentrations
has knowledge of any out of compliance issue, including groundwater exceedances. The proposed rule provides
above their 2L Standards.
guidance and timeframes for such notification to the Division consistent with current policy, which involves submitting to
the Division a one -page form. Sampling and analysis details, including lab reports, for the sampling event are expected in
the semiannual monitoring report submitted within 120 days per .0544(b)(6).
Notification also provides a documented starting date for meeting time requirements for assessment and/or alternative
source demonstrations per .0544(b)(7)(B) and (C).
.0544(b)(7)(B)(C
Recommend remove of item B as the review of the history, trends and potential alternate
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning Rule .0544(b)(7)(B) and (C).
source be performed prior to any assessment activity. Language should also be included
to indicate this can be incorporated into the semi-annual report text. Also B is covered in
In accordance with .0544(b)(6) for monitoring report submittal, all sampling data, including that of contaminant
the last sentence of C.
exceedances, are required. Nothing in the rules precludes the owner or operator from including within the semiannual
Additionally, 90-days is too short to complete complex ASD investigations, and
report a summary discussion of any other activities related to environmental monitoring and assessment.
assessment should not be implemented while the investigation is underway.
The 90-day timeline referenced in (b)(7)(C) provides time to demonstrate an alternate source of contamination prior to
initiating assessment per Rule .0545. If the demonstration is unsuccessful after 90 days, then assessment in accordance
to .0545 will be required as stated in the last sentence.
.0544(b)(12)
Recommend remove all references to IMACs. See comment for .0544(b)(1)(D).
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).

IMYA
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0544(d)(1)(A)
§258.23 only includes requirements for monitoring "methane gas" 15A NCAC 13B .0544
The proposed rule language also does not require regular monitoring for any explosive gas other than methane, unless
(d)(1) requires the use of specialized monitoring equipment or additional monitoring
another explosive gas such as hydrogen sulfide is discovered in the landfill vicinity, and a determination needs to be
equipment than what is required for
made on whether the gas was generated by the landfill, or another source. For example, hydrogen sulfide may be
§258.23, which is not addressed in the July 5, 2019, Draft Regulatory Impact and Fiscal
generated by a C&D landfill from wallboard. The Division is adding this language only to allow the Division to take action
Analysis.
to prevent harm to public health if there is some reason to suspect that the landfill is generating an explosive gas other
than methane. The Division expects that in most cases, no additional routine monitoring would be required.
The requirements of 40 CFR 258 are applicable to municipal solid waste landfills and the rules in Section .1600, and are
not directly applicable to Rules .0531 - .0546.
The fiscal impacts of this change were discussed in the approved fiscal note published for comment on the Department's
website during the comment period here: https://deg.nc.gov/documents/15a-ncac-13b-0531-0547-1105-1111-1600-and-
1800. (see Page C-20)
.0544(d)(3)(A)
Remove text after such as
The proposed rule language as published for comment modifies the existing language to include an example of what is
meant in the existing rule by "steps necessary to ensure protection of human health." The amended language reads as
follows:
If methane hane o explosive gas levels exceeding the limits specified in Subparagraph LD{dX-4-) of this Rule Paragraph are
detected, the owner and operator must: shall: (A) discovery of detection, notify the Division and take
all steps necessary to ensure protection of human health health, such as monitoring of offsite structures for explosive
gases; aR d ROtify the DiViciGR;
e
The example was added to clarify somewhat vague language. Note however that as mentioned previously in response to
other comments above, the addition of phrases beginning with "such as..." are meant only to provide examples of what
could be required, and not to provide an exclusive or comprehensive list of requirements. Removal of the added language
would not prevent the Division from requiring the monitoring offsite structures, if doing so was necessary to ensure
protection of human health, and the inclusion of the added language does not prevent the Division from requiring other
steps that are necessary.
.0545(a)
One event is not representative to trigger all the cost related to investigation and
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
assessment, which is not accounted for in financial impact statement.
Remove all references to IMACs
Concerning ASDs and assessment, see response above to comments by NC SWANA in Rule .0544(b)(7)(B) and (C).
See comment for .0544(b)(1)(D)
In response to the comment on contaminant travel, the Division assumes the comment is regarding Rule .0545(b)(1)(D).
90 days is not enough for a successful alternate source demonstration. Should be
See response to this same comment for Rule .0545(b)(1)(D) below.
allowed to complete demonstration prior to assessment monitoring (has been changed
back to 30 days — comment still stands)
(minimum distance of contaminant travel) 0 feet? Rephrase for clarity.
.0545(a)(1)
Does this include the subject property?
The Division assumes the term `subject property' in this comment refers to the landfill facility property. The rule requires
notification of all persons who own land or reside on land that directly overlies any part of the contaminant plume. This
notification may include the subject property. In some cases, the landowner of the subject facility is not the same as the
operator and would otherwise not be aware of potential contamination on their property.
.0545(a)(2)
30-days is not enough time to complete a review and potential ASD. The assessment
See response above to comments by NC NWRA concerning the 30-day timeframe in .0545(a)(2).
process should not being if this step has not been completed.
See response above to comments by NC SWANA for .0545(a) and .0545(a)(2); as well as response above to comments
by NC SWANA for Rules .0544(b)(7)(B) and (C).
.0545(a)
As written the rule suggests any one detection over a standard triggers assessment,
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning Rule .0545(a).
therefore most sites would be in perpetual assessment —practically, you want enough

D-38
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
data that demonstrates an increasing trend for particular constituents at locations outside
the compliance boundary before implementing any assessment processes
Remove reference to IMACs. See comment for .0544(b)(1)(D).
.0545(a)(1)
Should not include IMACs. As written this assumes there has been a release from the
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
landfill. Remove the time restriction to allow a complete alternate source demonstration to
be performed.
The 30-day notification requirement in .0545(a)(1) is not initiated until after the exceedance has been determined by the
owner or operator, at which time a release from the landfill has been verified. Notification in .0545(a)(1) is only required
once the site assessment is required per .0544(b)(7).
.0545(a)(2)
30 days is not enough time for a successful alternate source demonstration. Should be
See response above to comments by NC SWANA for .0545(a) and .0545(a)(2).
allowed to complete demonstration prior to assessment monitoring
Don't list out specific individuals (was sufficient without added text).
The Division added a listing of local officials to provide clarity and guidance on minimum requirements to meet this rule in
response to request for clarification during RRC pre -review and/or stakeholders meetings.
The Division has amended Rule .0545(a)(2) to state:
"...local government officials i"such as..." to be clear that these are some examples of what that term means.
.0545(b)
An Assessment Monitoring Work Plan is not required in §258.55.
G.S. 130A-294(e) states, "rules adopted under this section may incorporate standards and restrictions which exceed and
The additional cost of preparing the Assessment Monitoring Work Plan was not included
are more comprehensive than comparable federal regulations." Also 40 CFR 258 only applies directly to municipal solid
in the July 5, 2019, Draft Regulatory Impact and Fiscal Analysis.
waste landfills, and not C&D landfills.
Existing Rule .0545(b) requires the preparation and submittal of an assessment monitoring work plan, so this is not a new
requirement. The proposed amendments add only clarifications for meeting these existing rule requirements for the work
plan. Because the requirement was in existing rule, and existing rule is considered a part of the baseline for this rule -
making action, no fiscal analysis is required where no change to existing rule is made. The underlined text in this
Paragraph was only moved here from Paragraph (a)(1) or reworded.
.0545(b)(1)(D)
This is unclear, minimum is zero feet or not moving — is this requesting monitoring in the
The Division has amended Rule .0545(b)(1)(D) to state:
landfill? What information is actually needed?
"(D) horizontal and vertical extent of the release, minima rn distanno of nnntamiRaRt tro"ol•"
.0545(b)(2)
Appendix II should be limited to the area of investigation, to prevent needless expense for
Concerning the comment on the area of investigation, see response above to comments by NC SWANA on Rule
excessive monitoring of unrelated areas
.0545(b)(2).
Line 6-7 reads that detections are caused by analysis — rewrite this item
It should be clarified that additional Appendix II analysis is triggered only by Appendix II
Appendix II list is inclusive of all constituents on the Appendix I list so any constituent on the full Appendix II list applies.
exclusive (non Appendix 1) parameter detections.
The last sentence should indicate only newly detected and confirmed constituents would
The last sentence states "...baseline data for new detected constituents...." No change is required.
be reported.
.0545(b)(3)
Recommend remove all references to IMACs. See comment for .0544(b)(1)(D).
The Division is unsure of what Rule is being commented on here since there is no Rule .0545(b)(3).
Concerning IMACs in general, see response above to comments by NC SWANA for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4),
.0544(b)(7).
.0545(c)
Remove this Item (including all subheadings).
The language in Rule .0545(c) is consistent with Rule .1634, and is existing rule language that is not proposed to be
It is not the role of the Solid Waste Section to establish standards. If there is not a NC 2L
changed during readoption. If a groundwater quality standard or IMAC established in 15A NCAC 02L, a USEPA MCL, or
or EPA MCL, the division could request a standard be promulgated appropriately, by
public water supply standard is not established, a health -based groundwater protection standard is established by a
existing mechanisms in 2L that include going through a public comment and fiscal
Division Toxicologist. The Division Toxicologist calculates the groundwater protection standard in the same manner as a
analysis for each standard to be developed.
groundwater quality standard or IMAC established in 15A NCAC 02L .0202(d) and (e). The Section may request that the
Division Toxicologist contact DWR to begin the procedure of adoption of the health -based calculated groundwater
protection standard as a groundwater quality standard or IMAC. DWR then determines whether the health -based
calculated groundwater protection standard becomes part of the triennial review process.

MH
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
The purpose for establishing a health -based calculated groundwater protection standard for a constituent detected in the
groundwater at a landfill is to provide an alternate standard for the regulated community; rather than using the Practical
Quantitation Limit (PQL), which is the default standard under 02L if no standard or IMAC exist. This ensures facilities are
not required to conduct larger than needed assessments to define the extent of a constituent based on a PQL, not
required to conduct assessment monitoring or corrective measures until the constituent is below the PQL, not required to
sample nearby private drinking water wells based on exceedance of a PQL In addition, as laboratory equipment
technology continues to advance, the PQL, which would be the standard for these sites will continue to decrease as well.
If the Division were required to wait until the rule -making process to set a groundwater quality standard, the facility would
be subject to previously mentioned requirements until such time that the rule -making process was complete and the
standard was effective, which may be a year or more.
.0545(d)
If no Appendix II detections is assessment still required? Is the rest of the assessment
Rule .0545(d) refers to the requirements for assessment monitoring that includes specifics for sample frequency, wells to
dependant on the results from the Appendix II analysis?
be sampled, and analytical methods, including both Appendix I and Appendix 11. A point of confusion for some is that the
Appendix II constituent list only includes those constituents not otherwise contained in 40 CFR 258 Appendix I list. In fact,
Appendix II contains all the constituents in Appendix I. Decisions concerning assessment, such whether to continue
assessment, conduct corrective measures, or return to detection monitoring would be dependent on the results these
sampling analyses.
.0545(d)(1)
Should be allowed to complete demonstration approved by DEQ prior to entering
Concerning ASDs and assessment, see response above to comments by NC SWANA in Rule .0544(b)(7)(B) and (C).
assessment monitoring.
Additional reporting is a burden on operators/owners and has not historically been
Concerning the comment of additional reporting, see response above to comment by NC SWANA for Rule .0545(d)(1).
reviewed by SWS staff.
.0545(d)(2)
Only for App II or any detection? Verification sample should be #1.
Appendix II is inclusive of all Appendix I constituents and the rule applies for any constituent not previously detected in
the normal course of assessment monitoring.
.0545(d)(3)
Should be limited to area of concern not entire monitoring network —that is an improper
Concerning the comment on limiting monitoring to area of concern, see responses above to comments by NC SWANA for
use of resources
Rule .0545(b)(2) and for Rule .0545(d)(4).
Results should be included in routine monitoring already established, the SWS has a
established track record of not reviewing routine correspondence /reporting.
Concerning the comment of routine monitoring reporting, see response above to comment by NC SWANA for Rule
.0545(d)(1).
.0545(d)(4)
Change specify to approve — the owner/operator or their representative should establish
See responses above to comments by NC SWANA for Rule .0545(b)(2) and for Rule .0545(d)(4).
the network and parameters for approval.
.0545(d)(5)(D)
What does this represent? Monitoring in waste?
See the response to the comment by NC SWANA for Rule .0545(d)(5)(D) above.
.0545(d)(6)
Item c is recommended for removal — recommend removing related references.
The Division is unsure of what rule is being commented on here, since there is no Item c in Rule .0545(d)(6).
As written (line 34 "made for each exceedance") the owner/operator would be perpetually
writing ASDs — recommend remove this added text
With respect to the comment concerning line 34 and the text "made for each exceedance", see the responses above to
comments by NC SWANA for Rule .0545(d)(6).
.0545(d)(7)(A)
Item c is recommended for removal — recommend removing related references.
The Division is unsure of what rule is being commented on here, since there is no Item c in Rule .0545(d)(7)(A).
.0545(d)(8)
Cannot determine corrective measures if have not delineated and assessed site
The rule requires initiating an assessment of corrective measures within 90 days only after completion of initial
conditions, also assumes a modified monitoring plan has been created and approved.
assessment activities required in Paragraphs (a) and (b). Approval of the monitoring plan is part of the workplan in
Paragraph (a). Subparagraph (c)(8) only initiates the completion of assessment of corrective measures. Paragraph (e)
states ACM must be completed within 120 days, or as approved by the Division — the later of which provides flexibility
and additional time if warranted.

D-40
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.0545(f)
of completion" should be changed to "DEQ approval" as additional activities should not
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning Division approval in Rule .0545(f).
be requested beyond that point and there will be final documents to reference.
.0545(i)(1)
Remove timelines, needs to be appropriate to get the work completed, will be site specific.
The Division is unsure of what rule is being commented on here, since there is no Rule .0545(i)(1) in the text as published
for comment.
.0545(i)(1)(C)
Remove all references to IMACs. See comment for .0544(b)(1)(D).
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
.0545(k)
Remove timeline, should be based on site information.
The Division has amended Rule .0545(k) to add the following text to provide flexibility in the timeline for submittal of the
Corrective Action Evaluation Report:
"The owner or operator may request to submit the Corrective Action Evaluation Report to the Division on an alternate
schedule. The owner or operator shall submit the request in writing to the Division, and the request shall include a
justification for the alternate schedule. In making the determination on approval of the request, the Division shall consider
the following factors:
(1) the schedules for corrective action established in the Corrective Action Plan and changes to corrective
actions;
(2) the justification submitted by the owner or operator;
(3) the size, direction, and rate of travel of the contaminant plume;
(4) the circumstances and use of properties, groundwater, and surface water downgradient of the contaminant
plume; and
(5) whether the alternate schedule complies with Article 9 of Chapter 130A of the General Statutes and the rules
adopted thereunder."
.1602(14)
removed lateral expansion definition, and not included in .0101 definitions as of the 1-8-20
The definition of lateral expansion of an existing landfill was deleted as obsolete. The existing landfill referred to in the
GWWMC meeting documents. Vertical expansion also not defined and not include in
deletion meant a landfill receiving waste as of October 9, 1993. That language is no longer needed and the Division now
.0101
just uses the term "MSWLF unit". Neither "lateral expansion" or "vertical expansion" are included in the definitions as they
will just have their common meaning.
.1603(a)(2)(A)
"subsequent stage of landfill development" not a defined term (neither in .1600 or .0101) —
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .1603(a)(2)(A) above.
vague and unclear
.1603(c)(2)(A)
Draft permits — no language establishing a timeline for SWS to review; if documentation is
Please see the response to the same comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule .0533(c)(2) above.
requested to be submitted to DEQ in a timely fashion, it should also be reviewed as such
.1603(c)(6)(A)(i)
Can anyone request a public hearing? Option to add language around who can request.
Note that Rule .1603(c)(5) states in part, "any interested person may ... request a public hearing if no hearing has already
Does there need to be a valid reason for people to request the hearing?
been scheduled." The guidelines stated in existing Rule .1603(c)(5) and (6) are not proposed to be amended. Rule
.1603(c)(5) is clear in stating that anyone may request a public hearing, that they shall do so in writing and state the
nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing a public hearing, and a public hearing will be held. An
alternative to this requirement would be to always require a public hearing on a draft permit, whether one is requested or
not, but the Division feels that this is generally not necessary if no one requests a hearing. The term "valid reason" would
need to be defined and clarified before any such provision as suggested in this comment could be added to the rule for
the rule to comply with the APA. The Division considers an individual being concerned enough about the permit to
request a public hearing to be a valid reason to hold a hearing, so no further clarification in the rule is needed.
G.S. 130A-294(d) states, "The Commission is authorized to adopt and the Department is authorized to enforce rules
where appropriate for public participation in the consideration, development, revision, implementation and enforcement of
any permit rule, guideline, information or program under this Article."
.1604(b)(2)(J)
Routine inspections should be limited to posted operation hours
Please see the response to the similar comment regarding Rule .0534(b)(2)(J) above.
.1604(b)(2)(J)(iii)
Inspections — Includes practices and equipment
1. Conducting an inspection does not only mean visually observing physical objects and structures, it also means
1. How do you inspect a practice, it is not 39ppendic?
observing behaviors and actions occurring on site at the time of the inspections.

Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
2. Monitoring and control equipment is not specific, maybe need "such as" or to remove.
2. the language as proposed clarifies this phrase so that it restricts which the practices, operations, or monitoring and
-the inspectors are not trained to determine if equipment is up to manufacturer
control equipment that the permittee shall allow the Department to inspect, to only those items that are required or
specifications, and they could potentially request actions that may be the opposite of the
regulated by the facility permit or the rules of the Subchapter.
manufacturer recommendations, or potentially void warranties, or cause harm.
.1604(b)(2)(J)(iv)
-Owner/operator needs at least 48 hours notice because the permittee needs enough
The Division is not required to split samples with the permittee. If the Division chooses to split samples with the permittee,
time to arrange to split samples
as the Division regularly chooses to do under existing rule, neither the existing or proposed rule language prevents the
-Analytical results from sampling performed by DEQ or their representative must be
Division from making arrangements with the permittee to split samples in a time frame agreed upon by the Division and
provided to the owner/operator within 7-days of receipt and prior to publication on any
the permittee.
public portal. The owner/operator will be afforded time to comment prior to uploading
data to any public portal.
-recommend remove "Or as otherwise authorized" What is the intent of this language?
What are the limits?
.1604(b)(2)(K)(i)
This is poorly worded. Who has to split samples? Who is requesting to split samples?
The Division has amended this rule for clarification and as requested to state:
The permittee shall be afforded the opportunity to split -samples with DEQ sample
"Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity. The
collection. DEQ should notify in a reasonable amount of time (minimum 48-hours) if they
permittee shall split any required samples with the Division „n^„ request. Department upon request by the Department. If
want to split samples with site's consultant.
the Department requests that the permittee split samples with the Department, the permittee and the Department shall
collect the samples on a schedule that allows the permittee and the Department to obtain sample containers and
equipment prior to sampling."
.1604(b)(2)(M)(i)
Add to the end of that item "The permittee may use an existing survey if the survey was
See response above to comments by NC SWANA for Rule .1604(b)(2)(M)(I).
generated within 12 months of the permitte's receipt of the Division's written request"
.1617(a)(1)
Section .1623(b) references that a hydro/geo report must be submitted in the application
The Division has amended Rule .1617(a)(1)(F) to state:
described in this section (.1617(a)(1)), but Section .1617(a)(1) does not required that a
hydro/geo report must be submitted with the PTC application.
"the design hydrogeologic report and monitoring plans prepared in accordance with Rule .1623(b) of this Section; and"
The Division has amended Rule .1623(b) to state:
"A geological and hydrogeological report shall be the eRgiReeriRg plan that is required t ho submitted in the
application for the Permit to Construct in accordance with Rule .1617(a)(1) of this Section,"
.1617(a)(1)(B)
Shouldn't this be updated from the first part of the landfill initially developed, this
If this comment is related to phased construction, with the life -of -site permitting requirements, the Division no longer
statement is unclear
requires that an applicant limit a permit to construct application to a five-year phase. However, the Division understands
that not all facility owners will want to request a permit to construct that covers the entire 60-year period and will want to
continue phased permitting, phased construction, and phased operation. The Division believes that the proposed
language will accommodate those that wish to continue the phased approach (and will allow them to determine the size
of the phases) and those that wish to permit the full extent of the facility.
.1617(a)(1)(G) &
Is the environmental compliance history only relevant if you're a corporate owner? Are
Please see the response to a similar comment by David Lambert on this Rule.
.1617(b)(3) &
these two items linked? Possibly separate or make clear they are tied together
.1617(c)(6)
.1617(e)
Post closure permit: GS 130A-295.3 does not require this information for a closure
There is no reference to G.S. 130A-295.3 or its requirements in this proposed rule. This Division believes this comment
permit. It only requires this information for a new permit or permit amendment. Should
may have been made on a previous rule draft. Ownership structure is required in establishing the permit holder and in
this whole section be deleted?
establishing financial.
.1618(a)(1)
What is the notification? It is not defined. Is this from the SWS or the owner? SWS
"Notification" is referring to the first part of that same sentence, which states "The Division shall notify the applicant..."
should not rule by letter/email/memo/policy etc.
and that entire sentence in lines 4 through 12, including Subparagraphs (1) and (2), is defining what the notification will
contain.
.1618(b)
"and, if required by G.S. 89C, 89E, or 89F and not under the purview of another licensed
The Rules Review Commission has recently made clear that it is not under the purview of the Division or the EMC to
profession, and must shall be prepared by licensed professional engineers, licensed
determine through rule language which licensed professional is the appropriate professional to conduct the work required
geologists, licensed soil scientists, or licensed professional land surveyors." This
by the rule, and the authority to determine the appropriate professional lies with the licensing boards as required by G.S.

D-42
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
language is problematic, because it suggests any of the listed professions can perform all
89C, 89E, or 89F. Therefore, rule language cannot require that a particular professional conduct the work, but can only
parts of the site study. It also assumes there is no overlap between the professions,
refer to the requirements for professional licensing and the appropriate boards in G.S. 89C, 89E, and 89F to make that
which is not the case. Additionally, the engineering licensing board, due to their extensive
determination. The language is not suggesting that any one of the professionals can do the work, it is stating that only
resources, is quick to question other professionals and individuals for anything resembling
the licensing boards can determine whether the work falls under the purview of the professionals licensed by their boards.
engineering practices or even using the word engineering in a matter they deem unfit.
If the Division were to receive a resolution or statement from a particular board stating that the work required by the rule
falls under the purview of their licensed profession, then a note could be added to the rule language stating that the
particular board stated in a resolution that the work falls under the purview of their profession, as has been done in other
location throughout this Section. This note could be added for any board established under G.S. 89C, 89E, or 89F that
submitted such a document.
.1618(c)(1)(C)
This may be a safety issue.
The Division is unclear as to what is meant by a safety issue, but a landfill cannot be constructed if no determination can
be made whether the landfill meets the required buffer distances to public water wells, surface water intakes, and service
areas.
.1618(c)(1)(E)
Facilities cannot dictate which roads haulers will use to access facility. It is a reasonable
Please see G.S. 130A-295.5 and the requirements and specifications for the traffic study required to be conducted for
assumption that trucks could arrive via any route that leads to the final disposal area.
sanitary landfill permit applications.
.1619(d)(2)(B)
Remove "in increments of five years" If the landfills are operating under the life of site
Please see response to similar comment at .0537(c)(1) above.
conditions, they could construct and use more or less to suit their needs. Keeping the
outdated 5-year language in place does not allow for the intended changes suggested by
life -of -site permitting to be implemented.
.1619(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Use of stage is inconsistent with previous language related to phases of development.
Please see response to similar comment at .1603(a)(2)(A) above.
Stage is not a defined term.
.1620(a)
Recommend remove "As required under Rule .1617 of this Section, the owner or and
The Division has amended Rule .1620(a) to state:
operator shall submit an engineering plan which that meets the requirements of this Rule."
"As required under Ride 617 of this ScGtinrthe OWReF or eperater shall submit an The engineering plan which that is
This statement adds no information and only references one location in one separate rule
required to be submitted in accordance with Rule .1617 of this Section shall meet meets the requirements of this Rule."
where this rule is referenced.
.1620(c)
Remove "that provides no less than approximately five years of operating capacity,
While the Division is no longer limiting a phase to no more than five years of capacity, we are requiring that the plan
capacity and no more than the total facility capacity"
include no less than five years to avoid the need for the plan to be updated more often than every five years. The Division
is also specifying that the applicant cannot apply for more than the total capacity indicated in the facility plan.
.1620(d)(4)
- Recommend remove this item. The design hydro is a substantial report (generally a 5-
The Division has amended Rule .1617(a)(1)(F) to state:
inch binder of material) that makes more sense as a standalone section within the PTC
"the design hydrogeologic report and monitoring plans prepared in accordance with Rule .1623(b) of this Section; and"
rather than an appendix inside an appendix. This will provide less confusion when
searching for documents years in the future
The Division has amended Rule .1620(d) to delete Subparagraph (4).
- The life of site regulation was developed to provide the most options for owners, this
The Division has amended Rule .1623(b) to state:
language keeps the past method of 5-years cells which is opposite of the intent of life of
"A geological and hydrogeological report shall be the engineering plan that is required to ho submitted in the
site.
application for the Permit to Construct in accordance with Rule .1617(a)(1) of this Section,"
Rule .1620(d)(4) does not contain any requirements regarding "5 year cells."
.1622(1)
"within the physical capabilities of the available facilities" This statement is unclear. What
The Division has amended Rule .1622(1) to include only a reference to the same applicable requirement in 40 CFR
does this mean/What is the intent? Is this about the airport or the landfill? What affect
258.10.
does this have on locating the landfill?
.1622(9)(b)
15A NCAC 02B .0200 is a section of rules (it is the same as referencing the .1600 rules).
The Division references all of Section .0200 rather than a specific rule to incorporate any future changes to Section .0200
It would be more clear and useful to reference the specific rule number intended, rather
regarding prohibitions of landfills in any of the rules in Section .0200, so that we do not have to change our rule each time
than an entire section of rules.
DWR makes changes in their rule.

D-43
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
or in watersheds of other water bodies which indicate that no new discharging landfills
The Division has amended Rule .1622(9)(b) to end after "Clean Water Act", and has moved the rest of the language to a
are allowed,"... remove added language. OR remove everything past Clean Water Act on
new Part (c) that states:
line 13
"(c) At the time that an MSWLF unit receives the first permit approval to construct, an MSWLF unit that proposes to
discharge leachate to surface waters shall not be located within watersheds classified as WS-II or WS-III, or in
Keep "new" otherwise unclear if for all permitted, new permits, modified permits, new
ownership. When does this restriction apply?
watersheds of other water bodies which indicate that no new discharging landfills are allowed, in accordance with the
Can it be clear someplace RO water will not be treated the same as leachate?
rules codified at 15A NCAC 02B .0200."
The Division has also amended Rule .1622(9)(a) to state:
"At the time that an MSWLF unit receives the first permit approval to construct, an MSWLF unit shall not be located in the
critical area of a water supply..."
Treated leachate would require an NPDES permit for onsite discharge. Note that NPDES permits are prohibited in some
watershed classifications.
.1623(a)(3)
- Strike field logs and notes, this information is contained on boring logs and well
The proposed rule language in question provides clarity for the facility on recordkeeping requirements for geological data
construction records.
obtaining during the site investigations. Keeping and maintaining geologic investigation information, notes, and logs is
- Remove additional verbiage "Field logs and notes shall be legible; and may be
standard practice and access to this data can be helpful in verifying any discrepancies in reports or plans, as well as
typewritten" added to clarify field logs and notes, but only convolutes the issue
provide valuable sources for any problems or understanding about well conditions or geologic investigations in the future.
.1623(a)(4)(e)
What are dispersive characteristics, this is not defined. How are these characteristics
See response above to the comment by NC SWANA on Rule .0538(a)(4)(e).
different than hydraulic conductivity, porosity and effective porosity? What additional
information is being requested that is not already included in the clearly stated parameters
presented?
.1623(b)
Recommend remove "included in the engineering plan that is required to be" this allows
The Division has amended Rule .1623(b) to state:
for the Design Hydro Report to be submitted as its own section within the PTC, which is
"A geological and hydrogeological report shall be inrIi ded in the engineering plan that is required t he submitted in the
standard practice. The Design Hydro report is generally a 5inch binder sized report
application for the Permit to Construct in accordance with Rule .1617(a)(1) of this Section,"
containing its own tables, figures and 42ppendices that would become cumbersome and
confusing in the future when trying to locate historical information.
.1623(b)(2)(1)
Remove cement — in the event there is additional cut following well abandonment there
The Division has amended Rule .1623(b)(2)(1) to state:
could be fractures within the well column, bentonite grout is flexible and forgiving if
"...in accordance with the procedures for permanent abandonment of wells as delineated in 15A NCAC 02C .0113,
additional site work is to be completed following well abandonment
except that at the time of abandonment all piezometers within the landfill unit footprint area shall be overdrilled to the full
In trying to get specific there is increased conflict with 2C as well as the intent of the rule,
depth of the boring or to the top of bedrock, whichever is encountered first, prior to cement er hen+enite grout placement,
which is to prevent a preferential pathway to groundwater. The previous language
and the level of the grout within the boring shall not exceed in height the elevation of the proposed base grade."
requested the wells to be abandoned properly in accordance with the existing well drilling
and abandonment regulations, which is still applicable and fulfills the needs of the rule.
Remove the last sentence "The level of the grout within the boring shall not exceed in
height the elevation of the proposed base grade." This is open ended as to if you are
leaving an open borehole if the basegrades have not been cut, which is dangerous and
problematic as it counters 2C.
.1623(b)(3)(B)
This entire section belongs in the monitoring plans.
Development of water quality monitoring plans is part the geologic and hydrogeologic investigations and reports required
It is inconsistent with water quality monitoring reports, as surface water monitoring is
for site suitability and landfill design and the permit application requirements in Rule .1617. Inclusion of these monitoring
generally included as part of the site monitoring plan, therefore that information would be
plans in Rule .1623 is consistent with the permit application process.
presented in the section of the PTC for site water quality monitoring and should not be
confusing the issue with additional sections throughout the rules.
The public and regulated community have been used to and are familiar with this structure as these rules were first
adopted in 1993 and the Division is not aware of any persistent issues or confusion with this structure. Further, staff
regularly provides guidance and clarifications to the regulated community and public as needed for any questions
concerning rules or policy.

D-44
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.1623(b)(3)(B)(i)
Not all sites have surface water on the property, some language referencing site specifics
The rule is only requiring surface water monitoring for "...surface water features on or bordering the facility property,...".
needs to be included
Therefore, facilities with no surface water features on the property or bordering the property will, by default, not require
any surface water monitoring.
.1623(b)(3)(B)(iv
The monitoring frequency should be based on site conditions, especially for the closure
Surface water monitoring requirements are consistent with groundwater requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 258.54(b)
and post -closure periods
which states the monitoring frequency `...shall be at least semiannual during the active life of the facility (including
closure) and the post -closure period." Semiannual monitoring frequency meets the minimum requirements for monitoring
water quality. It's unclear from the comment what particular site conditions and corresponding monitoring frequency
would meet this minimum standard for ensuring effective monitoring of surface water.
.1623(b)(3)(B)(v)
What information is this line item requesting? It is unclear that this is more than a general
The Division has amended Rule .1623(b)(3)(B) by striking item M.
description of readily available information.
.1623(b)(3)(B)
(unclear if this is part of (vi) or its own item, likely formatting)
See response above to comment by NC SWANA concerning Rule .1623(b)(3)(B).
It is not a logical progression for a onetime exceedance of a 02B Standard to move to
establishing a different standard for the site. This is extreme escalation without
supporting information. Different language related to potential investigation based on
historical data, trends and site conditions might be a more scientifically accurate and
reasonable response.
.1623(b)(3)(C)
The monitoring plan cannot be effective in providing early detection, it is a document
The Division's position, consistent with standard environmental stewardship practices, is that an effective monitoring
program for early detection of a release from the landfill into the environment begins with a water quality monitoring plan.
.1623(b)(3)(C)
Remove "of concern" - Constituents of concern have not been identified in any general
See response above for comment on .1623(b)(3)(C) by NC SWANA.
plan, unless every parameter on all potential sampling lists are considered constituents of
concern. Perhaps say "monitored constituents" or reference the Appendix I of 40 CFR
258.
.1624(b)
The wording on this item is confusing. It is unclear if a buffer is required or if as long as
This rule describes liner design requirements and is not intended to address piggybacking or groundwater monitoring
the owner can demonstrate they are able to monitor landfill units independently they could
requirements.
potentially be a piggy back or minimally spaced.
To be clear based on the definition of Landfill unit, only when switching types of waste are
there separate monitoring requirements; so subsequent fill areas of MSW would all be
under the same monitoring plan regardless of the date.
.1624(b)(10)(C)(
Instead of "using technology such as electronic leak detection" maybe say "in compliance
The proposed rule was amended to add a reference the requirement of G.S. 130A-295.6(h)(1), and the language
v)
with the approved site CQA plan".
regarding leak detection was added at the request of stakeholders just to provide an example of what might comply with
the requirement.
.1624(b)(17)
This item might fit better under operational requirements as it doesn't really speak to the
The proposed amendments add a reference the requirement of G.S. 130A-295.6(i). The Division considers final contours
design conditions for the landfill; but rather fill capacity and height.
and overall capacity part of landfill design and believes the appropriate place is in Rule.1624.
.1625(b)
Is there a mechanism for having the ops plan updateable without going through an
An owner/operator may submit a modification to permit in accordance with Rule .1603(a)(3) to make changes to the
extensive review and renewal process? If it is easier to keep this document updated,
approved operations plan.
sites will have increased compliance.
.1626(7)(a) &
Recommend replacing "prevent" with "minimize"; as it more accurately reflects the
The requirement in this Part has not been changed from the existing rule, therefore the Division does not intend to
.1626(7)(b)
purpose and limitations of erosion and sediment control features
enforce this rule in any way different than it has been enforced since the existing rule was originally promulgated. It is
consistent with the similar requirement for C&DLFs. The purpose of the control measures is to prevent sediment from
leaving the facility and prevent on -site erosion.
.1626(10)(a)(i)
Not all training is for certifications, there should be a training log or attendance record, but
Please see the response to the similar comment from NC SWANA regarding Rule 0542(n)(1)(A).
"certification" is an inaccurate term for the requested information

D-45
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.1626(10)(b)
Remove "paper format or in an electronic format" to provide the most options
The Division has amended Rule .1626(10)(b), and also Rule .0542(n)(2) to state:
Could also reword to "The information contained in the operating record may be recorded
"The information contained in the operating record fly shall be recorded and retained in paper format or in an elontrenin
and retained in a format that is accessible and viewable by the Division, such as paper or
a format that is accessible and viewable by the Division.
electronic."
.1627(d)(3)
- Unsettling that there is potentially a never ending period of 5 year reports.
Please see the response to the similar comment from David Lambert, Iredell County regarding Rule .1627(d)(3) above.
- What is the SWS looking for but not stating that would require the seal of a licensed
engineer?
.1630
"before waste can be placed in the unit" — the way this sentence reads presently it
The Division has amended Rule .1630(b) to state:
appears every site needs to go through an assessment and corrective action process
"Owners or operators of MSWLF units shall comply with groundwater menitGinn�?essment, and GGrrcctive aGtienT
before they can use their landfill.
requirements under Rules .1630 threugh .1637 Rule .1631 of this Section before waste can be placed in the unit."
Simpler, cleaner language might be: "As applicable, owners or operators of MSWLF units
shall comply with the groundwater monitoring, assessment, and corrective action
Rule .1631 addresses installation of a groundwater monitoring system and collection of baseline/ background samples, and
requirements under Rules .1630 through .1637 of this Section."
is the only requirement that needs to be completed before waste can be placed in the unit. Paragraph (a) already requires
that all MSWLF units comply with Rules .1630 - .1637 in general.
.1631(g)
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC) from all rule
See response above to comments by NC SWANA about IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
language
Interim maximum allowable concentrations should not be included in the regulations as
they have not been through an official rule making process, have not been reviewed by
the public or the applicable voting bodies, there is not readily available information related
to the history of these parameters, what sites they were originated for and the initial intent
behind these numbers and parameters. There is a process to establish 2L Standards and
site specific standards that is extensive and will be more accurate, thoughtful and
representative.
Using a interim maximum allowable concentration convolutes the issue and potentially
creates huge expenses in situations with no potential harm and where the extreme
actions frequently requested by SWS are not warranted.
Facilities could be required to initiate assessment monitoring and/or corrective action for
IMAC exceedances that could no longer be exceedances after the adoption of the
proposed groundwater standard.
.1632(f)
Can the reference to 40CFR 258 be more specific? It currently references the entire
The Division has amended the reference in Rule .1632(f) to state:
regulation which is not helpful it you are trying to look up the reference, or gain additional
"The number of samples collected to establish groundwater quality data shall be consistent with the statistical procedure
information about this item.
to be used, as provided for in 40 GFR 258. Paragraph (g) of this Rule."
.1632(g)
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC) from all rule
See response above to comments by NC SWANA about IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
language. See comment regarding .1631(g)
Simpler, cleaner language might be "...to determine if there is an exceedance of the 15A
NCAC 02L Standard or the groundwater protection standard as defined..."
.1632(i)
Recommend removing "calculations of" providing the flow rate and references is sufficient
The Division has amended Rule .1632(i) to state:
"...information on groundwater flow direction, calc latiens of the groundwater flow rate; and..."
.1632(i)
Check reference: .1634(g) appears to be suggested for removal from this 1-8-20 version
The Division has amended Rule .1632(i) to state:
of the draft rules
"...as defined in Rule .1634(b)(3) through (4) .1634(g) of this Section."
.1633(b)
Recommend removing the first sentence about monitoring frequency, that is discussed
Requirements for monitoring frequency are appropriate for inclusion in Rule .1633(b). The public and regulated
and more applicable in .1633 (c) Or adding a reference to item (c)
community have been used to and are familiar with this structure as these rules were first adopted in 1993 and the
Division is not aware of any persistent issues or confusion with this structure.

Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
.1633(d)
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC) from all rule
See response above to comments by NC SWANA about IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
language. See comment regarding .1631(g)
.1633(d)(1)
As presented, this notice is for any constituent at any time that is detected at a
The "...report to the Division and place a notice in the operating record..." rule language is existing rule language and
concentration above its 2L or site specific standard, which for some sites suggests an
consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 258.54(c)(1).
additional step of reporting is being requested for every monitoring event.
.1633(d)(2)
Assessment monitoring is a dramatic jump from an unverified, un-researched, single
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
event sample.
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
90 days is not enough time to verify the sample, and perform the necessary due diligence
See 40 CFR 258.54(c)(2) for reference.
that is required prior to a site entering Assessment Monitoring.
A site entering Assessment Monitoring is a significant undertaking in both time and cost,
therefore, it is shortsighted for the SWS to use the term in this situation where that
program is not an appropriate response
.1633(d)(3)
Recommend this item be first in this section, as it provides the appropriate investigative
Subparagraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) are requirements and (d)(3) is optional for the owner/operator. This is the appropriate
order for sample results that are either abnormal or may have been found at a
order for the rule.
concentration above a 2L Standard.
90 days is not enough time to complete resampling, historical investigations, alternate
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
source demonstrations, or other actions that might be needed when verifying sample
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
results or the necessity of additional actions.
See 40 CFR 258.54(c) for reference.
It should be clear in this section no Assessment Monitoring program, work plan, etc is
requested or required by the SWS until a determination that verifies it is necessary has
See response above to comments by NC SWANA on Rule. 1633(d).
been provided by the owner
.1634(a)
The additional cost of preparing the Assessment Monitoring Work Plan was not included
See response above to comments on Rule .1634(a) by NC SWANA
in the July 5, 2019, Draft Regulatory Impact and Fiscal Analysis.
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC) from all rule
Rule .1634(a) as published for public comment does not require the preparation or submittal of an Assessment
language. See comment regarding .1631(g).
Monitoring Work Plan.
See response to comment below for Rule .1634(c)(1), which is amended to clarify monitoring report requirements for
when a facility is in assessment.
See response above to comments by NC SWANA about IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
.1634(b)
The reference to .1633(c)(2) does not make sense here. 90-days is not enough time to
The Division has amended the reference in Rule .1634(b) to state:
complete an entire assessment, if one is determined to be necessary.
"...in accordance with Rule .162).1633(d)(2) of this Section,"
With respect to the comment on the 90-day requirement:
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.55(b) for reference.
.1634(b)(1)
Additional wells should not be required, should be installed on an as needed basis
40 CFR 258.55(g)(ii) requires the installation of "at least one additional monitoring well at the facility boundary" as
triggered in 40 CFR 258.55(g) "if one or more appendix II constituents are detected... above ground -water protection
standard....". Rule .1634(b)(1) is consistent with 40 CFR 258.
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.

Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
See 40 CFR 258.55(g)(ii) for reference.
.1634(b)(2)
Appendix II monitoring should be limited to wells of concern, not all downgradient wells at
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
the site. This is a waste of resources.
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.55(b) for reference concerning assessment monitoring requirements.
.1634(b)(3)
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC) from all rule
See response above to comments by NC SWANA about IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
language. See comment regarding .1631(g).
.1634(b)(3)(D)
Double check references to 1631(a)(1) and .1632; they don't seem to fit here.
The Division has amended the reference in Rule .1634(b)(3)(D) to state:
"...in accordance with Rules .1631(a)(1) and 32.1632(e) through (h) of this Section."
.1634(b)(4)
Recommend removing this section, this creates the same problem as with IMACs (See
40 CFR 258.55(i) allows for establishment of an alternative groundwater protection standards. Proposed Rule
comment regarding 15A NCAC 13B .1631(g))
.1634(b)(4) is consistent with 40 CFR 258 and is unchanged from language in existing Rule .1634(h).
Recommend using site specific standards approved by the Division insead of Division
established numbers
Alternative groundwater protection standards established in accordance with .1634(b)(4) are valid compliance standards.
Any Division generated number should require explicit short term use, and not be
permitted to remain in perpetuity. They should also be approved by the EMC, or another
body to prevent improper or unintended use causing potential harm to the industry.
.1634(b)(6)
Double check references to 1631(a)(1) and .1632; they don't seem to fit here
The Division has amended the reference in Rule .1634(b)(6) to state:
"...in accordance with Rules .1631(a)(1) and .1 632.1632(e) through (h) of this Section."
.1634(c)
Assessment monitoring should only be performed if warranted, this statement presents
40 CFR 258.55(g)(2) and 258.55(e) provide requirements for assessment monitoring and on returning to detection
regardless of the confirmation sampling and other information, assessment monitoring will
monitoring.
progress.
Rule .1634(c) is consistent with conditions and requirements of 40 CFR 258.
Once assessment is triggered per Rule .1634(a), assessment monitoring is required until either an alternative source is
successfully demonstrated per Rule .1634(d) or all of the conditions in Rule .1634(e) are met.
.1634(c)(1)
It is unclear if this is an additional report separate from the routine monitoring reports.
The Division is not requiring a separate assessment monitoring report beyond the routine monitoring report.
.1632(i) is the requirements for routine monitoring events, it does not make sense to have
multiple reports submitted.
The Division has amended Rule .1634(c)(1) to state:
Edit to say "available boring logs and well construction records" as not all records are
" For each assessment monitoring event, the owner or operator shall submit an assessrr'o^+ a monitoring report to the
readily available.
Division as required by that ,.ernplies with Rule .1632(i) of this Section and, if required by G.S. 89E, the report shall be
certified by a licensed geologist. The iRitial assessmeRtAny monitoring report submitted during assessment shall contain
a summary description of assessment activities conducted in accordance with Paragraph (b) of this Rule that have not
previously been reported to the Division, including boring logs and well installation records."
.1634(c)(2)
This should be limited to detections over a NC 2L Standard or EPA MCL value
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
40 CFR 258.55(g)(1)(iii) requires notification of offsite property owners if contaminants have migrated offsite. 40 CFR 258
does not limit this requirement to only exceedances of any groundwater protection standards.
The requirements in Rule .1634(c)(2) are consistent with 40 CFR 258.
.1634(c)(3)
Should this say App II exclusive?
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.

D-48
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
See 40 CFR 258.55(g)(1)(iii) for reference.
Rule .1634(c)(3) refers to detections of any 40 CFR 258 Appendix II constituent as stated. A point of confusion for some
is that the Appendix II constituent list only includes those constituents not otherwise contained in 40 CFR 258 Appendix I
list. Appendix II contains all the constituents in Appendix I.
.1634(c)(4)
Assessment monitoring should be limited to wells within the area of concern
40 CFR 258.55(d)(2) establishes the requirements for monitoring stated in .1634(c)(4).
Nonetheless, Rule .1634(c)(6) provides a possible means in which to reduce assessment monitoring frequency and/or
number of wells sampled. The Division would base such a decision on site -specific conditions. This is consistent with 40
CFR 258.55(c).
.1634(c)(6)
Remove "no less than annually" - site monitoring should be based on site specific needs.
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
Not every well at every site should be or needs to be sampled each year.
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.55(d)(2) for reference.
.1634(d)
Remove "each exceedance", it implies an entire assessment report needs to be
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
conducted and submitted separately for each unique sample and sample location
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
detected above a 2L Standard.
See 40 CFR 258.55(g)(2) for reference.
Any ASD is unique to the facility and unique for any constituent detected above an established GWPS. Once an ASD for
a constituent is successfully demonstrated, any future detection of that constituent will be evaluated against that
constituent's alternative demonstration.
See the response above to comment by NC SWANA on .1634(d) for proposed changes to this rule.
.1634(d)
It should be clear in the rule that an alternate source demonstration should be conducted
Concerning allowing for an alternate source demonstration (ASD) prior to assessment,
before commencing any assessment activities
40 CFR 258.55(g)(2) dictates requirements and timeline for ASD during assessment.
Recommend removing "including initiating an assessment of corrective measures in
accordance with Paragraph (f) of this Rule."
40 CFR 258.55(g)(2) requires initiation of an assessment of corrective measures while conducting an ASD.
An evaluation of corrective measures should not be conducted if the assessment is
incomplete.
40 CFR 258.55(g) sets the 90-day timeline for initiation of assessment of corrective measures (ACM) and requires
What does initiate mean?
completion within a `reasonable period of time". 40 CFR 258 does not explicitly provide for delaying the ACM in order to
conduct a full assessment.
Consistent with 40 CFR 258.55(g), existing Rule .1635(a) states the owner/operator shall initiate ACM within 90 days and
complete the ACM within 120 days, which is a minimum total of 210 days from triggering the ACM in Rule .1634(f).
Proposed changes to add "or as approved by the Division" to Rule .1635(a) provides a means for more time to complete
the ACM.
Because the rule says initiate ACM in accordance with Paragraph (f), initiate means beginning to do the actions required
in Paragraph (f).
.1634(e)(1)
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC) from all rule
See response above to comments by NC SWANA about IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
language. See comment regarding .1631(g)
.1634(e)(2)
Recommend revising to read: "the extent of plume migration has been identified"
40 CFR 258.55(e) only requires two consecutive events with no statistical exceedances and owner `may' return to
detection monitoring after notifying the State.
Current Rule .1634(e) is same as 40 CFR 258, but states "...the Division shall give approval...."

D-49
Comments Submitted on 3/19/20 by Maddie German, P.G.
Rule Reference
Comment
Response to Comment
The extra measure of requirement for returning to detection monitoring in proposed Rule .1634(e)(2) is that the
contaminant plume must be stable and not increasing in size and does not pose a risk for further migration beyond it's
current extent. As long as the plume is moving and has the potential to migrate offsite, the Division proposes to require
the site to remain in assessment for added protection of the public and the environment.
.1634(f)
Assessment of corrective measures should not be conducted before assessment. It is
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
logical to be included as part of the Assessment Report
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.55(g) for reference.
40 CFR 258.55(g) sets the minimum requirements and timelines for initial responses to finding of a GWPS exceedance,
including the 90-day timeline for initiation of ACM.
.1635(a)
Is this appendix II exclusive, because Appendix I parameters are included in Appendix II.
See comments above for Rule .1634(c)(3) concerning Appendix II.
Is this intended to be included as part of assessment or following completion of
assessment?
Rule 1635(a) addresses requirements for Assessment of Corrective Measures. Also, see comment above for Rules
.1634(d) and .1634(f) concerning initiation of ACM.
.1635(d)
Recommend changing "completion" to "DEQ approval"
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning Division approval of the ACM in Rule .1635(d).
.1635 & .1636
There should be language that a discussion of potential corrective measures and/or
See response above to comments by NC SWANA concerning the self -implementing nature of the ACM in Rule .1635(d),
selected remedy may be included within the assessment report, or at a minimum indicate
including the requirement to "discuss the results of the ACM, prior to selection of a remedy, in a public meeting with
this does not need to be a stand-alone report
interested and affected parties". The Division does not dictate how this discussion is handled or how the results are
presented. The Rules also do not request a separate `report', but does require, in Rule .1636(a), "the permittee shall
submit an application to modify the permit describing the selected remedy". This is consistent with 40 CFR 258.57(a) on
a report for the selection of remedy.
Nothing in the rules preclude the inclusion of any discussion concerning the ACM in an assessment report or monitoring
report if the owner or operator opts to do so.
.1636(b)(2)
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC) from all rule
See response above to comments by NC SWANA about IMACs for Rules .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7).
language. See comment regarding .1631(g)
.1637(b)
Recommend removing the time restriction. The point of life of site is to get away from
The Division has amended Rule .1637(b) to add the following text to provide flexibility in the timeline for submittal of the
required check in's with DEQ every 5 years. This report, which is quite costly, should only
Corrective Action Evaluation Report:
be submitted if it is needed which is determined based on site specific information and will
"The owner or operator may request to submit the Corrective Action Evaluation Report to the Division on an alternate
schedule. The owner or operator shall submit the request in writing to the Division, and the request shall include a
be reviewed by the folks directly involved with that particular site.
justification for the alternate schedule. In making the determination on approval of the request, the Division shall consider
The most cost effective and efficient manner to handle any corrective action is to allow the
the following factors:
owner to work on a site specific basis, for actions and reporting.
Recommend adding language on a timeline approved by the division
(1) the schedules for corrective action established in the Corrective Action Plan and changes to corrective
actions;
(2) the justification submitted by the owner or operator;
(3) the size, direction, and rate of travel of the contaminant plume;
(4) the circumstances and use of properties, groundwater, and surface water downgradient of the contaminant
plume; and
(5) whether the alternate schedule complies with Article 9 of Chapter 130A of the General Statutes and the rules
adopted thereunder."

IM111
.1637(f)(2)
Keep as 2 consecutive events, to be consistent with other SWS regulations and industry
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
practice.
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.58(e)(2) for reference.
.1637(f)(3)
This doesn't add anything to the rule
The rules in Section .1600 pertaining to municipal solid waste landfills are required to be consistent with, and at least as
restrictive and protective as the requirements in 40 CFR 258.
See 40 CFR 258.58(e)(3) for reference.

MM
APPENDIX 1
Agency Head Certification

D-52
CERTIFICATION OF THE AGENCY HEAD
REGARDING COMPLETION OF A FISCAL NOTE AND RULE ANALYSIS
IN RE: 15A NCAC 13B .0531 - .0545, and .0547 Requirements for Construction and
Demolition Debris Landfill Facilities (CDLFs) and .1601 - .1627, .1629 - .1637, and
.1680 Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs)
FINDINGS
The Chair of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission ("the
Commission") is appointed by the Governor to guide and coordinate the activities of the
Commission in fulfilling its duties. G.S. § 143B-284.
The Commission has the power and duty to promulgate rules to be followed in the
protection, preservation, and enhancement of the water and air resources of the State.
G.S. § 143B-282(a).
The undersigned Chair of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
hereby certifies that the attached rules comply with the rulemaking principles set out in
Executive Order No. 70 as amended by Executive Order 48 (2014). The Chair
specifically certifies the following:
1. The attached rules are necessary because the rules are
required by federal law, citation:
x required by state law, citation: G.S. 15013-21.3A
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. §
15013-21.4; or
x A fiscal note has been prepared and approved by the Office of State
Budget and Management in accordance with G.S. § 150B-21.4. A copy of
the fiscal note can be found in the rulemaking record at the locations
described in (2) above.

D-53
4. The rules meet all other requirements of Executive Order No. 70.
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 .0531 - .0545, .0547, .1601 -
.1627, .1629 - .1637, and .1680 entitled "Requirements for Construction and Demolition
Debris Landfill Facilities (CDLFs)" and "Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills (MSWLFs)," are in compliance with Executive Order No. 70.
This, the 9th day of January 2020 at Raleigh, North Carolina.
C air
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission

D-54
APPENDIX 2
Hearing Officer Designation Memo

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Roy Cooper, Governor
Michael S. Regan, Secretary
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
January 23, 2020
To: EMC Commissioner John McAdams
From: Dr. A. Stan Meiburg, Chairma��
Subject: Hearing Officer Appointment
David W. Anderson
Shannon M. Arata
Yvonne C. Bailey
Charles Carter
Donna L. Davis
Marion Deerhake
IMW
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
A public hearing has been scheduled for March 3, 2020 at 3:00 PM in Room 1201 at the
DEQ Green Square Building, 217 West Jones Street in Raleigh, NC. The purpose of this hearing
is to receive comments on the readoption and amendments to several solid waste management
rules in 15A NCAC 13B .0500, .1600, and .1800 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

AM
APPENDIX 3
Hearing Attendance Sheet and Transcript

ATTENDANCE SHEET - MARCH 3, 2020 RALEIGH PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED RULES D-57
15A NCAC 13B .0531 - .0647, .1105, .1111, AND SECTIONS .1600 AND .1800 FOR C&D AND MSW LANDFILLS AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
If you do not wish to speak. you may submit writtan r.,w,.,, -*-

ATTENDANCE SHEET - MARCH 3, 2020 RALEIGH PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED RULES D-58
15A NCAC 13B .0531 - .0547, .1105, .1111, AND SECTIONS .1600 AND .1800 FOR C&D AND MSW LANDFILLS AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
If you do not wish to speak, you may submit written comments to L sica.montie _ by APRIL 17, 2020.
PRINT NAME AFFILIATION (OPTIONAL) E-MAIL PLEASE CHECK IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO BE
(Reside t, Elected Official, Other) (if you wish to receive updates) CALLED UP TO SPEAK
17 qzZJry kkl
ItOl
J y A*000e ee-el R444
18 Ste' �.QS'�?JD' / ,I Co pia vtq�� i7 j�Sv�t9t�1, I1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

IAW
SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
I am calling this public hearing to order.
My name is John McAdams and I am a member of the Environmental Management
Commission. I am the presiding officer for this evening's hearing.
This public hearing is being held by the Environmental Management Commission
to solicit written and oral comments on rules relating to Solid Waste Management
Facilities. The Environmental Management Commission is granted authority in the
North Carolina General Statutes to adopt certain rules following the procedures
specified in General Statute 150B. Accordingly, a public notice containing the
proposed rules under consideration was published in the February 17, 2020 edition
of the North Carolina Register and on the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) website, and was sent by e-mail to interested parties including, but not
limited to, advocacy groups, local government contacts, and industry contacts.
The audio of this hearing is being recorded for the record.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comments on 15A NCAC 13B
Rules .0531 - .0547, .1105, .1111, and Sections .1600 and .1800 for Construction
and Demolition and Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities and Financial
Assurance for Solid Waste Management Facilities. These rules collectively
establish standards for the permitting procedures, siting, design, performance
standards, operation, closure, and post -closure of these two types of solid waste
landfills, and for financial assurance for all solid waste management facilities
permitted under Subchapter 13B. Amendments to these rules are being
considered by the Environmental Management Commission as part of the
readoption process pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.3A, which requires that existing rules
be reviewed every 10 years.
As the hearing officer, it is my responsibility to listen to your comments and assist
in the preparation of the hearing report, which summarizes the information
presented tonight, all comments received tonight and throughout the comment
period, and provides recommendations to the Commission on the proposed rule -
making. The Commission will make the decision on the final action, which may be
to accept the hearing officer's recommendations, modify them, or take a different
course of action. As it now stands, the Commission should consider the adoption
of the proposed rules at their May 14, 2020 meeting in Raleigh.

IX9C111
The Commission is interested in your comments on these rules to help them
decide what the final rule language should be for their consideration. The
Commission is not only seeking your comments on the proposed rule language,
but also on the two Regulatory Impact Analysis documents.
Information on these rules has been available on the DEQ website since February
17, 2020. The documents on the website include proposed wording of the rules,
an explanation of the rules, information on the public comment period and contact
information for submitting written comments, and information on the possible
impacts from the rules as provided in the two Regulatory Impact Analysis
documents.
If anyone has written comments they would like to provide, including any speakers
who have written copies of their comments, please provide them to the staff before
leaving today. Written comments prepared after the hearing may be submitted by
e-mail or US Mail to Jessica Montie at the address provided in the information
available at the back of the room or in the Proposed Rule Notice on the DEQ
website's Proposed Rule Library. All comments received by April 17, 2020 will be
included in the public comment record. Equal weight is given to both written and
oral comments.
appreciate everyone's attendance and would like to take this time to recognize
any public officials in attendance today.
(Introduce any public officials or other EMC members that wish to be recognized. Staff will
provide a list if any public officials sign in)
Now I would like to invite any additional public or elected officials to stand and
introduce themselves.
would also like to recognize members of the DEQ staff that are here. Will you
please raise your hands?

SECTION 2 — HEARING PROCEDURES
(If attendance is minimal, you may wish to pass over this Section and proceed to Section 3)
At this time, I will provide an overview of how the meeting will be conducted:
1. 1 will call on speakers in the order they signed up to speak. If you wish to
speak and have not yet signed up, you still have the opportunity to do so at
the table in the entryway.
2. When your name is called, please come to the microphone, and clearly state
your name and any group you may be representing or affiliated with.
3. Each speaker will be limited to 3 - 5 minutes so that everyone who wishes to
speak has an opportunity to do so. Staff will keep track of the time and raise
a sign to indicate when you have 1 minute remaining and when you have 30
seconds remaining to finish your comments.
(Adjust the time limit as needed if a very large crowd attends.)
4. All public comments will be directed to me as the hearing officer.
5. 1 ask that everyone respect the right of others to speak without interruption.
6. Please keep your comments concise and limit them to the proposed
rulemaking.
7. At the end of the meeting, if time remains, we will ask if anyone who did not
sign up would now like the chance to speak.

SECTION 3 — CALLING OF SPEAKERS
will now call on speakers that signed up to give comments.
(No attendees signed up to give comment)
Is there anyone else who did not sign up to speak but would now like to provide a
comment on the rules?
Joe Hack with Mecklenburg County, and representing NC SWANA, provided a comment
thanking DWM staff for the collaboration on these rule changes, and stating that NC
SWANA would be submitting their written comments at a later date.
SECTION 4 — CLOSING THE HEARING
would like to thank everyone for attending tonight's hearing. Your input is greatly
appreciated.
If there are no more comments, then this hearing is closed.
The public comment period will remain open until April 17, 2020. Written
comments may be submitted to Jessica Montie at the email address or mailing
address provided in the information available at the back of the room.

XK.V
APPENDIX 4
Written Comments Received During the Comment Period

DocuSign Envelope ID: 27AB727A-18AB-46EF-9848-248250F09A47
D-64
astaThe North Carolina Chapter of the
WAKA 8UHYYai
"team Solid Waste Association of North America
- - p (NC SWANA)
PO Box 110
Newton, NC 28658
April 14, 2020
Ms. Jessica Montie
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
RE: Comments on Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Proposed Rule Revisions from the
North Carolina Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America
Dear Ms. Montie:
Please accept these comments on behalf of the NC Solid Waste Association of North America (NCSWANA). We
have reviewed the proposed rules 15A NCAC 1313.0500 et. seq. and offer the following comments and questions
for consideration. For ease in review, in each instance the page number, the rule number and the comment is
included.
Comment #1— Page B-9 Proposed Rule .0533(c)(2)
Is there a timeline for the NCDEQ to review draft permits? G.S. 130A-309.203 sets a strict timeframe for NCDEQ
permit reviews. This statute should be incorporated by reference into the proposed rule, or the language from
the statute should be added to the proposed rule for clarity.
Comment #2 — Page B-10 Proposed Rule .0533(c)(F)
Is the contact person in this proposed rule a Division representative?
Comment #3 - Page B-12 Proposed Rule .0533(c)(6)(A)
What are the guidelines for triggering a public hearing? How will requests for a public hearing be managed in
this regard? Are there limits to the number of public hearings that can be held? Please clarify this process. The
way it is written any party may request a hearing, the stricken language should be restored. Comment #4 —.Page
B-12 Proposed Rule .0533(c)(6)(B)
Is there a time limit on how long NCDEQ can take to publish the end date of the extended comment period?

DocuSign Envelope ID: 27AB727A-18AB-46EF-9848-248250F09A47
ROM
Comment #5 —Page B-15 Proposed Rule .0534(b)(2)(J)
Is it NCDEQ's intent to inspect facilities without the owner's representative present? In the interest of safety,
routine inspections must be performed in the presence of a facility employee.
Comment #6 - Page B-16 Proposed Rule .0534(b)(2)(J)
In order to allow the owner the option to "split samples" the owner/operator would require advanced notice
typically two business days of the NCDEQ's intent to samples in order to arrange for laboratory glassware and
facility representative presence for split sampling to occur. This notification should be added to this proposed
language. Additionally, there should be language stating that NCDEQ will share results of split sampling with the
owner/operator in a timely fashion upon receipt.
Comment #7 — Page B-18 Proposed Rule .0535(e)
This section should refer to a Post -Closure permit modification, rather than a new permit. GS 130A-295.3 makes
no provision for the Closure Permit. The information specified in this section is called for in the general statute
for a permit modification, therefore we believe referring to this as a post -closure permit modification is more
appropriate. Further discussion between the solid waste management industry and the NCDEQ is necessary to
define what this submittal should include. Also, please clarify how this proposed language would affect landfills
previously closed under the .0500 rules?
Comment #8 — Page B-20 Proposed Rule .0536(c)(1)(E)
After September 11, 2001 some of this information is no longer made public and therefore may not be available
for submission. A provision regarding "if publically available" should be added.
Comment #9 —Page B-27 Proposed Rule .0537(e)(4)
Was the requirement for a traffic study considered in the fiscal analysis of this rule?
Comment #10 —Page B-27 Proposed Rule .0537(e)(5)
Was the cost of the study of environmental impacts considered in the fiscal analysis of this rule?
Comment #11—Page B-29 Proposed Rule .0538(a)(4)(e)
Please define dispersive characteristics. This term is undefined in the rule.
Comment #12 —Page B-34 Proposed Rule .0539(f)
DEQ please clarify the applicability of SL 2007-550: the reference may need to be amended, (e) noted below refers to a liner
system, the leachate system is detailed in (h). We would recommend that the referenced language be included in the rule.
With the applicability language noted in (1 and (2) below
(1) An amendment, modification, or other change to a permit for a landfill issued on or after 1 June 2006.
(2) A permit for a horizontal or vertical expansion of the landfill permitted afterl June 2006.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 27AB727A-18AB-46EF-9848-248250F09A47
RON
(e) A sanitary landfill for the disposal of construction and demolition debris waste shall be constructed with a liner system
that consists of a flexible membrane liner over two feet of soil with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-5 centimeters per
second. The flexible membrane liner shall have a minimum thickness of thirty one -thousandths of an inch (0.030"), except
that a liner that consists of high -density polyethylene shall be at least sixty one -thousandths of an inch (0.060") thick. The
flexible membrane liner shall be installed in direct and uniform contact with the soil layer. The Department may approve an
alternative to the soil component of the liner system if the Department finds, based on modeling, that the alternative liner
system will provide an equivalent or greater degree of impermeability.
(h) The following requirements apply to any sanitary landfill for which a liner is required:
(1) A geomembrane base liner system shall be tested for leaks and damage by methods approved by the
Department that ensure that the entire liner is evaluated.
(2) A leachate collection system shall be designed to return the head of the liner to 30 centimeters or less within
72 hours. The design shall be based on the precipitation that would fall on an empty cell of the sanitary landfill as a result of
a 25-year-24-hour storm event. The leachate collection system shall maintain a head of less than 30 centimeters at all times
during leachate recirculation. The Department may require the operator to monitor the head of the liner to demonstrate
that the head is being maintained in accordance with this subdivision and any applicable rules.
(3) All leachate collection lines shall be designed and constructed to permanently allow cleaning and remote
camera inspection. All leachate collection lines shall be cleaned at least once a year, except that the Department may allow
leachate collection lines to be cleaned once every two years if: (i) the facility has continuous flow monitoring; and (ii) the
permit holder demonstrates to the Department that the leachate collection lines are clear and functional based on at least
three consecutive annual cleanings. Remote camera inspections of the leachate collection lines shall occur upon completion
of construction, at least once every five years thereafter, and following the clearing of blockages. (4) Any pipes used to
transmit leachate shall provide dual containment outside of the disposal unit. The bottom liner of a sanitary landfill shall be
constructed without pipe penetrations.
Comment #13 —Page B-42 Proposed Rule .0542(e)(17)
Please clarify which permitting authorities are required or specify who is authorized.
Comment #14 —Page B-42 Proposed Rule .0542(f)(1)
We believe the working face of a landfill should be site specific and based upon the site design, tonnage
received, equipment and operational factors. We recommend this should be specified in the Operations
Manual for approval.
Comment #15 —Page B-45 Proposed Rule .0542(m)
The timeline required for survey (60 days) may not be feasible depending up on the season and should e
extended. A sentence should be added to this section which states "The permittee may use an existing survey if
the survey was generated within 12 months of receipt of the Division's written request."
Comment #16 —Page B-45 Proposed Rule .0542(n)(1)(A)
We request changing the term "certification of training" to "documentation of training". Not all training receives
a certification since some training is done in-house.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 27AB727A-18AB-46EF-9848-248250F09A47
IMA
Comment #17 - Page B-52 Proposed Rule .0544(b)(1)(D)
For constituents that are affected by seasonal fluctuations, a true representation of background conditions may
not be captured in the data utilized for statistical background comparisons in only six months. We recommend
the timeline be changed to 12 months.
Comment #18 - Page B-52 Proposed Rule .0544(b)(1)(D)
Were the added four sampling events considered in the fiscal evaluation of this rule?
Comment #19 - Page B-52 Proposed Rule .0544(b)(1)(D), .0544(b)(4), .0544(b)(7)
Please clarify the process and timeline for an Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration (IMAC) to become
promulgated under 2L. As the language stands now, an IMAC could remain as an IMAC indefinitely, thus
bypassing the public notification process and comment period as well as bypassing the evaluation of fiscal
impacts. It is not the intent of the general statutes to allow rules to bypass these critical foundations of law
making therefore a process and timeline whereby an IMAC is adopted to the 2L standards must be defined.
Comment #20 —Page B-55 Proposed Rule .0544(b)(7)(B) and (c)
We recommend the removal of item B until after such time as the Alternate Source Demonstration in Rule
.0544(b)(7)(C) is completed and has not proven an alternate source. We further recommend extending the
timeframe for completion of the Alternate Source Demonstration as 90-days is insufficient to performing this
type of study.
Comment #21—Page B-58 Proposed Rule .0544(d)(1)(A)
Was the added cost of specific hydrogen sulfide monitoring equipment included in the fiscal evaluation for this
proposed rule?
Comment #22 —Page B-61 Proposed Rule .0545(a)
One unverified sampling event is insufficient to warrant initiating assessment monitoring and procedures.
Further, completion of the Alternate Source Demonstration should be allowed prior to initiation of assessment.
A sufficient timeframe should be allowed for completion of the Alternate Source Demonstration should be
provided for in the rule language.
Comment #23 —Page B-61 Proposed Rule .0545(a)(2)
Thirty days is insufficient to verify sample results, receive analytical data, review all pertinent hydrogeological
information and prepare an alternate source demonstration plan. We suggest a timeframe of 60 days.
Comment #24 —Page B-61 Proposed Rule .0545(a)
We request that the wording be changed from "each exceedance" to "each constituent that exceeds the water
quality standard".

DocuSign Envelope ID: 27AB727A-18AB-46EF-9848-248250F09A47
D-68
Also, this section should be revised to allow for an alternate source demonstration to be performed prior to
commencing assessment activities.
Comment #25 —Page B-61 Proposed Rule .0545(a)(2)
To allow for detected constituents to be verified prior to notifications, we request this section be revised to say
"shall, within 30 days of verifying this finding..."
Comment #26 —Page B-61 Proposed Rule .0545(b)
Was the cost of preparation of the Assessment Monitoring Work Plan evaluated as part of the fiscal analysis for
these rules?
Comment #27 —Page B-62 Proposed Rule .0545(b)(2)
This section should be revised to limit Appendix II monitoring to those areas where an exceedance of Appendix I
constituents has occurred.
Comment #28 — Page B-63 Proposed Rule .0545(d)(1)
The language modification implies an increase in reporting requirements as part of the assessment. Has this
increased reporting been considered in the fiscal evaluation of this proposed rule?
Comment #29 - Page B-64 Proposed Rule .0545(d)(3)
Assessment monitoring should be limited to those areas and wells that exhibit exceedances of water quality
standards. Comment #30 --Page B-64 Proposed Rule .0545(d)(4)
Please change the word "specify' in this section to "approve". The owner/operator will specify the network and
parameters for approval.
Comment #31—Page B-64 Proposed Rule .0545(d)(5)(D)
We recommend this be modified to state "minimum distance of contaminant travel".
Comment #32 —Page B-64 Proposed Rule .0545(d)(5)
We request that the wording "no less than annually" be removed from the language. Water quality monitoring
should be based on site specific information.
Comment #33 —Page B-64 Proposed Rule .0545(d)(6)
We request that the wording be changed from "each exceedance" to "each constituent that exceeds the water
quality standard".
Also, this section should be revised to allow for an alternate source demonstration to be performed prior to
commencing assessment activities. The section states "After completion of sections a and b of this section..."

DocuSign Envelope ID: 27AB727A-18AB-46EF-9848-248250F09A47
D-69
Section (d)(6) which allows for an alternate source demonstration should be included in that reference so an
alternate source demonstration may be performed prior to assessment activities.
Comment #34 —Page B-65 Proposed Rule .0545(f)
Please change the wording of "within 120 days of completion of the assessment of corrective measures..." to
"within 120 days of DEQ approval of the assessment of corrective measures..."
Comment #35 —Page B-69 Proposed Rule .0545 (k)
Can a timeline for NCDEQ review of submittals also be included in the proposed rule?
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule revisions. If you have any questions regarding
our comments, please contact us at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
NC SWANA
DocuSiigned by:
uS��y
F03B85C698514DF...
D. Scott Bost
Chapter President

DocuSign Envelope ID: 98A61DE6-A3B1-48B3-BD3F-4859F8A0955D
D-70
�QR� The North Carolina Chapter of the
8NHYYaate
"tea Solid Waste Association of North America
- - p (NC SWANA)
PO Box 110
Newton, NC 28658
April 14, 2020
Ms. Jessica Montie
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
RE: Comments on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Proposed Rule Revisions from the
North Carolina Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America
Please accept these comments on behalf of the NC Solid Waste Association of North America (NCSWANA). We
have reviewed the proposed rules 15A NCAC 1313.1600 et. seq. and offer the following comments and questions
for consideration. For ease in review, in each instance the page number, the rule number and the comment is
included.
Comment #1- Page C-7 Proposed Rule .1603(a)(2)(A)
The term "subsequent stage" of landfill development is used several times in the proposed rules, but is not
defined. Please provide clarification on the meaning of this term as used in the proposed rule and/or add a
definition for the term.
Comment#2 - Page C-10 Proposed Rule .1603(c)(2)(A)
Is there a timeline for the NCDEQ to review draft permits? G.S. 130A-309.203 sets a strict timeframe for NCDEQ
permit reviews. This statute should be incorporated by reference into the proposed rule, or the language from
the statute should be added to the proposed rule for clarity.
Comment #3 - Page C-14 Proposed Rule .1603(c)(6)(A)(i)
What are the guidelines for triggering a public hearing? How will requests for a public hearing be managed in
this regard? Are there limits to the number of public hearings that can be held? Please clarify this process. The
way it is written any party may request a hearing, the stricken language should be restored.
Comment #4 - Page C-18 Proposed Rule .1604(b)(2)(J)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 98A61DE6-A3B1-48B3-BD3F-4859F8A0955D
Ubf
Is it NCDEQ's intent to inspect facilities without the owner's representative present? In the interest of safety,
routine inspections must be performed in the presence of a facility employee.
Comment #5 - Page C-19 Proposed Rule .1604(b)(2)(J)(iv) and .1604(b)(2)(K)(i)
In order to facilitate "split samples" the owner/operator would require advanced notice (tyipcallyof two business
days) of the NCDEQ's intent to split samples in order to arrange for laboratory glassware and facility
representative presence for split sampling to occur. This notification should be added to this proposed language.
Additionally, there should be language stating that NCDEQ will share results of split sampling with the
owner/operator in a timely fashion upon receipt.
Comment #6 - Page C-20 Proposed Rule .1604(b)(2)(M)(i)
A sentence should be added to this section which states "The permittee may use an existing survey if the survey
was generated within 12 months of receipt of the Division's written request."
Comment #7 - Page C-23 Proposed Rule .1617(e)
This section should refer to a Post -Closure permit modification, rather than a new permit. Further discussion
between the solid waste management industry and the NCDEQ is necessary to define what this submittal should
include. Also, please clarify how this proposed language would affect landfills previously closed under the .1600
rules?
Comment #8 — Page C-26 Proposed Rule .1618(c)(1)(C)
After September 11, 2001 some of this information is no longer made public and therefore may not be available
for submission. A provision regarding "if publically available" should be added.
Comment #9 --Page C-33 Proposed Rule .1620 (c)
The proposed rule states: "...that provides no less than approximately five years of operating capacity, capacity
and no more than the total facility capacity." Remove the second "capacity" .
Comment #10 —Page C-36 Proposed Rule .1622(1)
There is confusion regarding which "facility" some of this language refers to. To clarify, it would be helpful to
change the sentence "...within the physical capacity of the available facilities." to "...within the current physical
capacity of the existing aviation facilities."
Comment #11—Page C-43 Proposed Rule .1623(a)(4)(e)
Please clarify what "dispersive characteristics" will be required. These are not defined.
Comment #12 — Page C-48 Proposed Rule .1623(b)(3)(B)
The language in this proposed rule should address two items:
1) confirmation of constituent concentrations in surface water prior to discussions regarding establishing a
surface water standard (if none exists); and

DocuSign Envelope ID: 98A61DE6-A3B1-48B3-BD3F-4859F8A0955D
11YA
2) the plan should only require establishment of a surface water standard if the constituent is detected in the
downgradient location(s).
Comment #13 —Page C-48 Proposed Rule .1623(b)(3)(C)
We suggest changing the term "Constituents of Concern" to "monitored constituents".
Comment #14 — Page C-70 Proposed Rule .1626(10)(a)(i)
We request changing the term "certification of training" to "documentation of training". Not all training receives
a certification since some training is done in-house.
Comment #15 — Page C-75 Proposed Rule .1627(d)(3)
It is unclear what is required to be certified and what would require a professional seal.
Comment #16 — Page C-81 Proposed Rule .1631 (g), .1632(g), .1633(d)
Please clarify the process and timeline for an Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration (IMAC) to become
promulgated under 2L. As the language stands now, an IMAC could remain as an IMAC indefinitely, thus
bypassing the public notification process and comment period as well as bypassing the evaluation of fiscal
impacts. It is not the intent of the general statutes to allow rules to bypass these critical foundations of law
making therefore a process and timeline whereby an IMAC is adopted to the 2L standards must be defined.
Comment #17 — Page C-84 Proposed Rule .1632(i)
Please review the reference in this proposed section. We believe the section should refer to .1632(g) not .1634.
Comment #18 — Page C-86 Proposed Rule .1633(d)(1)
To allow for detected constituents to be verified prior to notifications, we request this section be revised to say
"shall, within 14 days of verifying this finding..."
Comment #19 — Page C-88 Proposed Rule .1634(a)
Was the cost of preparation of the Assessment Monitoring Work Plan evaluated as part of the fiscal analysis for
these rules?
Comment #20 — Page C-88 Proposed Rule .1634(b)
Please check the reference in this section. We believe the section should refer to .1633(d).
Comment #21— Page C-88 Proposed Rule .1634(b)(2)
This section should be revised to limit Appendix II monitoring to those areas where an exceedance of Appendix I
constituents has occurred. .
Comment #22 — Page C-89 Proposed Rule .1634(b)(4)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 98A61DE6-A3B1-48B3-BD3F-4859F8A0955D
D-73
Sections 3 and 4 should be combined under one sub -heading called Comparison to Standards, with sections 3
and 4 as sub -headings of what to do if standards do not exist.
Comment #23 — Page C-90 Proposed Rule .1634(b)(6)
Are the referenced rules in this section correct?
Comment #24 — Page C-90 Proposed Rule .1634(c)(4)
Assessment monitoring should be limited to those areas and wells that exhibit exceedances of water quality
standards. Comment #25 — Page C-91 Proposed Rule .1634(c)(6)
What is the reasoning behind "no less than annually". Water quality monitoring should be based on site specific
information.
Comment #26 — Page C-91 Proposed Rule .1634(d)
We request that the wording be changed from "each exceedance" to "each constituent that exceeds the water
quality standard".
Also, this section should be revised to allow for an alternate source demonstration to be performed prior to
commencing assessment activities.
Comment #27 — Page C-91 Proposed Rule .1635(d)
Please change the wording of "within 120 days of completion of the assessment of corrective measures..." to
"within 120 days of DEQ approval of the assessment of corrective measures..."
Comment #28 — Pages C-95 and C-96 Proposed Rules .1635 and .1636
In the list of notice options there should be a third options included that is "Other methods as approved by the
NCDEQ". Currently there is state law that says that public entities can use their websites for pub notices and we
request that this or other means be open for consideration.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule revisions. If you have any questions regarding
our comments, please contact us at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
NC SWANA
DocuuS�Siigned by: �y
�. �l30 T BOr
F03 B85C698514 DF...
D. Scott Bost
Chapter President

D-74
National
Waste & Recycling
Association
Collect Recycle.lnnovate.
Carolinas Chapter
April 13, 2020
Jessica Montie
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Re. Comments on proposed rules 15 NCAC 13B .0531 - .0547 Construction and
Demolition Landfill Facilities
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.
Comments
15A NCAC 13B .U531(b)(3)
This is a major addition that requires new regulations in Rules. 0531 thru .0546.
Previous definition of these sites required them to fallow Rule .0547 only at a time of
closure. What is the intent?
1

Diva
15A NCAC 13B .0532
As published, many definitions would be repealed and replaced by definitions in
15A NCAC 13B .0101 of the Subchapter. But, 15A NCAC 13B .0101 has not yet been
submitted to the Environmental Management Commission for consideration. As a result,
there is great potential for confusion or misunderstanding during the proposed gap
between adoption of this rule and the replacement definitions.
15A NCAC 13B .0544 (h)(1)(D)
We object to the proposed language that samples be collected "within a six-month
period" and recommend that to ensure accuracy, background and downgradient samples
should be collected over a period of not less than six months. This allows the
owner/operator to compensate for season fluctuations.
15A NCAC 13B .0545 (a)(1)
Notification for contaminants that have migrated off site, or thought to have
migrated off site, should only be required if the level of detection exceeds the standards in
15 NCAC 02L .0202.
15A NCAC 13B .0545 (a)(2)
The 30-day requirement for submitting an assessment monitoring plan should be
90 days. This was in an earlier draft of the rules at 90 days, and was in the draft
recommended by the Ground Water and Waste Management Committee. The proposed
MSW landfill rules keep this requirement at 90 days and this should be consistent.
1SA NCAC 13B .0535 (e)
The proposed rules to require an application for a permit for closure and post -closure
should be eliminated. At the time of any application for, and issuance of, a permit to
construct, a closure and post -closure plan is included and/or amended. To update those
plans at the conclusion of the site's operating life, incorporating subsequent rules changes,
could impose requirements that are not feasible to implement retro-actively and/or

UbLy
impose excessive costs beyond those provided for in the financial assurance or closure
reserves set aside by the operator.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on these very important rules.
Sincerely,
Phil Carter
Legislative Committee Chair
North Carolina Chapter
National Waste & Recycling Association
3

.1TrA
National
Waste & Recycling
Association
Collect Recycle Innovate.
Carolinas Chapter
April 13, 2020
Jessica Montie
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Re: Comments on proposed rules 15 NCAC 13B .1600 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Facilities
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.
Comments
15A NCAC 13B .1602 Definitions
These rules should not be adopted until the definitions in Rule .0101 of this
Subchapter have been adopted. If these rules are adopted without the accompanying
definitions, there is a likelihood of confusion and misinterpretation. The Environmental

D-78
Management Commission should delay the adoption of these rules until such time as
Subchapter .0100 can be simultaneously adopted.
15A NCAC 13B .1603 (a)(2)(B)
The term "corporate structure" is not defined and is not relevant for all reasons for
which a permit amendment might be necessary. Also, in the event of a change of
ownership, it should not be necessary to re -submit all the requirements of rule 15A NCAC
13B .1617 such as engineering plans, CQA plans, monitoring plan, etc.
15A NCAC 13B .1603 (a)(4)
The proposed rules to require an application for a permit for closure and post -
closure should be eliminated. At the time of any application for, and issuance of, a permit
to construct, a closure and post -closure plan is included and/or amended. To update those
plans at the conclusion of the site's operating life, incorporating subsequent rules changes,
could impose requirements that are not feasible to implement retro-actively and/or
impose excessive costs beyond those provided for in the financial assurance or closure
reserves set aside by the operator.
15A NCAC 13B .1603 (c)(6)
The proposed change to the rule could be reasonably interpreted to require a public
hearing be held on a permit, if only one party requests it. The current language provides for
a public hearing when "a significant degree of public interest in a draft permit is
determined". The proposed language makes no mention of reasonableness requirement
in a request for such a hearing. The proposed change should be removed and the current
language retained.
15A NCAC 13B .1617 (e)
There should be no requirement for an owner or operator to submit an application
for a closure and post -closure permit. To update the plans required in the proposed rule at
the conclusion of the site's operating life, incorporating subsequent rules changes, could
impose requirements that are not feasible to implement retro-actively and/or impose
2

D-79
excessive costs beyond those provided for in the financial assurance or closure reserves set
aside by the operator.
I5A NCAC 13 B .1618 (c) (5) (C)
The requirements to advertise a public notice are stated in NCGS 130A-294(bl)(3) and
should not be modified or changed in the proposed rule.
I5A NCAC 13B .1622(1)
The meaning of the phrase "within the physical capacities of the available facilities"
is unclear.
I5A NCAC 13B .1622(1)(b)
The rules should not refer to a FAA guidance document or advisory circular.
Reference should only be made to the Federal statute or rule that applies.
I5A NCAC 13B .I623(b)(3)(B)(vi)
The proposed requirement to obtain a determination from the Division on
establishing a surface water standard is excessive for a one-time detection of a constituent
or parameter without an existing standard. The standard should be the USEPA national
standard and one should not be imposed if there is no such standard.
15A NCAC 13B .1624(b)(9)(C)(v)
The addition of the statute in the proposed rule is not objected. However, the
reference of a specific technology is objected. The statute allows for testing of a
geomembrane base liner by methods approved by the Department. For all existing
landfills, these methods have already been allowed by permit and the use of these existing
methods has been proven effective over the past 30 years.
3

D-80
15A NCAC 13 B .1626 (4)
The term "explosive gases" in sub -paragraphs (i) and (ii) is more restrictive than the
term "methane gas" used in the Corresponding Federal regulations at 40 CFR 258.23(a)(1).
Federal regulations do not require for the monitoring of any explosive gas other than
methane.
15A NCAC 13H .1631(g)
We object to the addition of Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations to the
existing language in this rule.
15A NCAC 13B .1633 (h)
We object to the proposed language that samples be collected "within a six-month
period" and recommend that to ensure accuracy, background and downgradient samples
should be collected over a period of not less than six months. This allows the
owner/operator to compensate for season fluctuations.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on these very important rules.
Sincerely,
Phil Carter
Legislative Committee Chair
North Carolina Chapter
National Waste & Recycling Association
4

M:1i
North Carolina
Conservation
Network
�Ik
T. 919,857.46"
F: 919.833.8819
19 East Martin St.
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27601
April 17, 2020
Jessica Montie, Solid Waste Section
NC DEQ Division of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
[e-mail]
Delivered via email
Re: proposed rules readoption for 15 NCAC 13B .1601-.1627,
.1629-.1637, and .1680 for MSWLF; and .0531-.0545, and .0547 for
www.ncconservationnetwork.org C&D landfills.
Dear Ms. Montie,
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments for this set of rules. The work done by the Division
of Waste Management (DWM) staff to develop these rule revisions and the regulatory impact analysis is
gratefully noted. Please review these comments as recommendations for 15 NCAC 13B rules .1601-
.1627, .1629-.1637, and .1680 rules for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) as well as .0531-.0545,
and .0547 for Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfills.
To start, we acknowledge that many of the proposed changes — which we believe leave the environment
and communities at risk - were required by recent legislation establishing life -of -site permitting. Even so,
we must remind DWM that protecting communities that live near the facilities regulated by MSW &
C&D landfills should be a priority. We hope our suggestions are helpful in navigating a path toward
greater community and environmental protection.
There are quite a few revisions that we support from the MSW landfill existing proposed revisions. To
begin, the expansion of the leachate standards to include special engineering features based on the site,
a traffic study, and an environmental impact assessment are applauded. In addition, the requirement for
construction quality assurance reports to additionally report on all progress, troubleshooting meetings,
and evaluations of the entire liner for the site with relevant technology is a strong step forward for
active monitoring.
For the C&D landfill revisions, some of the major celebrated changes focus on the increased
transparency to the monitoring State agency (ex. fact sheet prep, leachate management plan, more
defined IMAC exceedance required procedures), impact assessment studies (ex. traffic and
environmental), and the change from predominantly bedrock to full bedrock locations for future siting
decisions'.
1 Proposed Rule Changes for 15A NCAC 13B .0531 C&D Landfills.

DOW
The Commission should prohibit the direct and indirect discharge of landfill leachate to state waters.
In a point of strong departure from the proposed rule, we encourage the Department and the EMC to
revise the required components of a leachate management plan (C&D, 15A 13B .0542(0); MSW, 15A
NCAC 13B .1626(12)) to explicitly disallow the disposal of leachate through discharge at a municipal
wastewater treatment plant. We understand that most landfills currently dispose of leachate by putting
it directly into sewer collection systems or by sending it by pumper truck to a nearby wastewater
treatment plant (although the current system is not transparent, as the destination and volume of
leachate is not recorded with any consistency in ongoing reports — it should be).' We recognize that we
are recommending a significant change to the way the industry currently operates. We do so because
the current approach presents a genuine threat to public health and the environment, one that
incremental improvements to sampling and permitting will not allay.
Here is the argument in brief. The existing leachate provisions in .0542(o) and .1626(12), proposed for
re -adoption, call for plans to manage leachate disposal.' The driver for the substantive protections in
those plans are in federal law: sampling of leachate under the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and EPA rules; and discharge limits at wastewater plants under the Clean Water Act. The
sampling required by RCRA, used to establish that leachate can be managed as 'nonhazardous',
addresses a list of just 39 pollutants.' There are relatively few pollutants covered by discharge limits in
NPDES permits for wastewater plants. Neither approach addresses the witches' brew of contaminants,
including emerging contaminants, found in leachate from both C&D and MSW landfills.' Moreover, this
cannot be corrected by setting standards for the additional pollutants within the brew one by one.
There are too many to regulate them individually, and many have synergistic effects, and in any event
many cannot be efficiently removed from wastewater by treatment technologies currently in use. Many
emerging contaminants are persistent in the environment, and some bioaccumulate, making dilution an
unworkable management strategy over time.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) offer a concrete example of this problem. Peer -reviewed
scientific research has repeatedly found high concentrations of mixtures of PFAS in leachate from C&D
2 Proposed 15A 13B .0542(n) and 15A NCAC 13B 1626(10) establish record keeping requirements for C&D and
MSW landfills, respectively, but neither mentions records of leachate disposal. We suspect that is because the
federal recordkeeping rule, 40 CFR 257.105, also overlooks leachate. Yet, without tracking of how much leachate is
being sent where, the state has no way to evaluate the threat leachate poses on a facility by facility basis.
s We recognize and appreciate that the proposed readoption for the first time calls for the preparation of leachate
management plans for C&D landfills, including annual sampling of leachate. Given what we know about the toxicity
of C&D leachate, it would make sense to require semi-annual sampling, as the rule already does for MSW landfill
leachate. Our larger point, however, is that the entire current structure of leachate sampling and disposal to
surface waters is not adequate to protect water quality.
' 40 CFR 261.24; see also, US EPA, Introduction to Hazardous Waste Identification, 2005, at 16.
5 See, for example, Jason Masoner et al, Landfill leachate as a mirror of today's disposal society: pharmaceuticals
and other contaminants of emerging concern in final leachate from landfills in the coterminous United States,
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2015, 35:4, at 906 (USGS research finding 101 emerging contaminants in
leachate from 22 landfills); Jason Masoner, et al, Contaminants of emerging concern in fresh leachate from landfills
in the coterminous United States, Environ. Science Process Impacts, 2014, 16:10, at 2335 (USGS research finding
129 emerging contaminants in leachate from 19 landfills); Pinjin He et al, Municipal solid waste landfill: a source of
microplastics?, Water Research, 2019, 159 at 38 (finding 17 types of plastics as microplastics in MSW leachate).

D-83
and MSW landfills. Most recently, a study published this week finds PFAS concentrations at 15,000
parts per trillion in C&D leachate and nearly 20,000 parts per trillion in MSW leachate in Florida.' Yet,
the RCRA screen to determine whether leachate is hazardous does not include levels for any PFAS,
individually or as a class.' Wastewater plants in North Carolina do not have discharge limits for PFAS,
and the state has not exercised its authority to bar PFAS discharges as a violation of the state's narrative
prohibition on the discharge of toxic substances into state waters under 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a). The
treatment technologies used to treat wastewater at the plants that receive landfill leachate cannot treat
or remove PFAS. As a result, discharge of C&D or MSW landfill leachate through municipal wastewater
plants releases toxic PFAS to our rivers. This is not a responsible management strategy.
For similar reasons, we recommend against the 'retention of language allowing the direct discharge to
surface waters of treated landfill leachate from C&D (15A NCAC 13B .0542(I)(4)) and MSW (15A NCAC
13B .1626(8)(d),(e)) landfills. The NPDES permitting framework, and the treatment technologies readily
available to manage leachate for direct discharge simply are not designed to address the suite of
emerging contaminant mixtures found in leachate. Further, federal technology -based effluent
limitations for direct discharges from non -hazardous waste landfills, at 40 CFR 445.21, adopted in 2000,
address only 9 pollutant parameters, and make no special provision for emerging, persistent, or
bioaccumulating pollutants. Again, state rules should require sequestration of landfill leachate rather
than dilution and discharge.
The Commission should exclude new landfills from floodplains and wetlands.
The current rules proposed for readoption include relatively weak prohibitions on siting landfills within
the 100-year floodplain and in wetlands (C&D, 15A NCAC 13B .0536(4), (5); MSW, 15A NCAC 13B ).
These should be strengthened to prohibit encroachment into waters of the state, regardless of federal
jurisdictional status. Allowing landfills, even under special conditions, to locate in functional wetlands
compromises groundwater quality protection measures. Moreover, the increase in frequency of more
intense storms makes exclusion from the mapped 100-year floodplain of very limited value. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Association of
State Floodplain Managers all recommend that critical infrastructure be located outside or above the
500-year floodplain.10 North Carolina's Office of Resiliency and Recovery, in its draft Action Plan for the
Community Development Block Grant for Hazard Mitigation (CDBG-MIT), has said that structures built
with federal disaster funds must be elevated at least two feet above the base flood elevation of the 100-
6 Johnsie Lang et al, National Estimate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Release to U.S. Municipal
Landfill Leachate, Environmental Science & Technology, 2017, 51:4, at 2197; Hanna Hamid et al, Review of fate and
transformation of per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFASs) in landfills, Environmental Pollution, 2018, 235, at 74
(noting that PFAS precursors, which can be transformed into PFAS during wastewater treatment, are as abundant
in leachate as PFAS).
7 Helena Solo-Gabriele et al, Waste type, incineration, and aeration are associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl
levels in landfill leachates, Waste Management, 2020, 107, at 191.
8 40 CFR 261.24.
' Timothy Appleman, et al, Treatment of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in U.S. full-scale water treatment
systems, Water Research, 2014, 51, at 246 (finding that conventional treatment techniques are ineffective for PFAS
removal).
io FEMA, Reducing Flood Effects in Critical Facilities, RA2, 2013; American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 24-05:
Flood Resistant Design and Construction; Association of State Floodplain Managers, Critical Facilities and Flood
Risk, 2011.

D-84
year floodplain, or — and this is particularly consequential in the wake of Florence, Matthew, and
Michael — at least two feet above the high water mark outside of the floodplain."
The Commission should retain language provided for unannounced testing.
One of the largest concerns associated with the proposed revisions is the new requirement that the
Department give a 24-hour notice to have access to all parts of the facility relevant for testing.
Previously, Department Staff were able to conduct testing unannounced at facilities. Unannounced
testing allows facilities to best represent daily status levels to DWR staff and for data to best indicate
when corrective action needs to be swiftly taken. A 24-hour notice could allow for preparations that
would affect Staff testing results; possibly leading to significant deviations from historic records. A 24-
hour notice generally compromises the quality of monitoring that DEQ can maintain with a signaling
system in place to alert waste management facilities. We strongly recommend that this clause be
removed and for Departmental operations to continue with no requirement of warning for the testing of
facilities.
The readopted landfills rules and their implementation must provide for environmental justice.
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental regulations and policies. Fair
treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental
harms and risks of regulations and policies. It is essential that the ruleset provide for the analysis of
environmental justice and specifically, the analysis of potential disparate and cumulative impacts to
environmental justice communities.
The consideration of Environmental Justice is more critical than ever in the area of waste management
due the already present disparities. In our research based on the Department of Environmental Quality's
(DEQ's) historical data on post -closure landfills revealed these data conclusions:
—78% of post -closure landfills in the state are in areas with income levels below the State's average of
$52,41312
—91% of post -closure landfills have >20% of the population assessed as low income
—43% of post -closure landfills are in areas with Black populations above the state average of 22.2%"
No specific demographics should be experiencing negative environmental at any higher rates than other
groups. In NC General Statute §130A-294(a)(4) charges DWM, in processing an application for a solid
waste facility, to deny the application if "[t]he cumulative impact of the proposed facility, when
considered in relation to other similar impacts of facilities located or proposed in the community, would
have a disproportionate adverse impact on a minority or low-income community...". That statutory
requirement applies to the agency whether or not the Environmental Management Commission (EMC)
rules governing any particular solid waste permit process provide for an equity analysis. However, if the
rules do not provide an equity analysis, the agency's record of decision will not include the basic
information necessary for the agency to make a non -arbitrary decision on the application of N.C. Gen.
Stat. §130A-294(a)(9).
11 NC Office of Resiliency and Recovery, CDBG-MIT Action Plan, November 7, 2019, at 55.
12 US Census Bureau, North Carolina Quick Facts, 2014-2018.

.a:17
North Carolina constitutional requirements underpin the policy decision to build consideration of equity
into the permit process. North Carolina Constitution Article 1, Section 19, the Law of the Land provision,
calls both for 'equal protection of the laws for all North Carolinians', and no state 'discrimination by race
or color'. Without analyzing equity during rulemaking and permitting decisions, the EMC and the agency
cannot guarantee an actual outcome on the ground that is free of discrimination based on race or color,
or that assures all North Carolinians equal protection.
In addition, we recommend that the proposed rules clearly call for the use of DEQ's new Community
Mapping Tool, a non -regulatory, analytical tool that can serve as a data source during the permitting
process. This tool can assist DWM in building a meaningful analysis of disparate and cumulative impacts
into the permitting process, something that is needed for the agency to be able to comply with N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 130A-294(a)(4)(c). Permit language should include any conditions that may be attached to
the permit to avoid or mitigate those impacts. We also recommend that DWM staff develop a clear and
concise procedure for this analysis and work with applicants where needed.
Cnndutinn
We urge the Department of Environmental Quality and, specifically, the Division of Waste Management
to deeply consider these recommendations and implement them in further revisions of the rules and
permits for MSWLFs.
Sincerely,
Alfre Wimberley
Policy Fellow
NC Conservation Network
Jamie Cole
Policy Manager
NC Conservation Network
Grady McCallie
Policy Director
NC Conservation Network

.aiy
Montle, Jessica
From: Cama Merritt <[e-mail]>
Sent: April 16, 2020 11:07 AM
To: Montie, Jessica
Subject: [External] Waste disposal of construction debris
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
I understand that you are receiving comments on the rules governing disposal sites for construction and demolition
waste. I also understand that NC rules regarding PFAS leakage need to be tightened. Please accept my comment that the
rule to be adopted protect our ground water from the leakage of these dangerous chemical compounds.
Thank you,
Cama Merritt
1244 Arbor Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27104
336-724-4563
1

DOW
Montle, Jessica
From: Townson CIV John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: April 16, 2020 7:51 AM
To: Montie, Jessica
Cc: Delaney CIV Charity R; Voorhees CIV Travis P; Shrout Maj Ryan; Adams CIV Erin M
Subject: [External] RE: Notice of Comment Period 15A NCAC 13B Section .1600 Amendments
Ms Montie:
This email is sent as Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune's official comment on the proposed rule changes described in
your email notice of 13 February 2020.
Our primary concern is that the proposed changes consider GW sampling results that are above background
concentrations to be exceedances (for constituents without 2L or other standards). Background concentrations are
usually well below 2L standards, and it is very normal to see results that are above the background concentrations. Per
.1634(f), exceedances in two consecutive sampling events (semiannual) trigger an Assessment of Corrective Measures
(ACM), which appears to be a lengthy and costly process involving public meetings and comments, remedial actions,
corrective action plans, and so on.
.1634(f) text:
--- "If one or more constituents are detected for two consecutive sampling events above background, the groundwater
standards established in 15A NCAC 02L .0202, or the groundwater protection standards established in accordance with
Subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this Rule, the owner or operator shall initiate Assessment of Corrective Measures in
accordance with Rule .1635 of this Section within 90 days." ---
Comments:
15A NCAC 13B .1634 Assessment Monitoring Program
15A NCAC 13B .1635 Assessment of Corrective Measures (ACM)
15A NCAC 13B .1636 Selection of Remedy
15A NCAC 13B .1367 Implementation of Corrective Action Program (CAP)
We would like to request that .1634(b)(3)(c) and .1634(f) be revised as follows:
1634(b)(3)(c)
a. Request deletion. Using a background concentration of a constituent as a GW protection standard
would essentially make it an "alternative GW protection standard". Therefore, it would need to satisfy
the criteria outlined in .1634(b)(4). Since a background concentration is not a health -based level, and
does not meet these criteria, it would not be a valid GW protection standard. If there is a concern with a
constituent that has no 2L or other GW protection standard, the Division can develop a valid alternative
GW protection standard for that constituent using criteria in .1634(b)(4).
1634(f)
a. Increase the trigger of initiating an ACM to four consecutive sampling events (exceedances of the same
constituent(s)). Observing detections during only two consecutive sampling events is not an adequate
amount of time to indicate a significant trend or issue.
b. Remove "detections above background" as a trigger. 2L and other GW protection standards are
established for groundwater protection. Therefore, there would be no impetus to initiate an ACM unless
there were consecutive detections above the 2L or other GW protection standards.
Questions:

D-88
1. Regarding .1634(f): Is the permittee expected to begin ACM/CAP requirements after receipt of direct
instructions from NCDEQ, or does NCDEQ expect these actions to be initiated without explicit direction from
NCDEQ?
2. Is there an exception for closed landfills?
3. When would the compliance deadline for these amendments be?
4. If there are multiple constituents with consecutive exceedances, is a separate ACM required for each
constituent? Or can one ACM address all constituents' exceedances?
5. If consecutive exceedances of a different constituent occur while a CAP is underway that was initiated because
of previous consecutive exceedances, should another ACM be initiated? Or would the new constituent
exceedances be "addressed" by the already active CAP?
6. Does an ACM need to be initiated for consecutive background exceedances?
7. Does it have to be a consecutive exceedance of the same constituent, or if there is an exceedance of one
constituent, then during the next sampling event there is an exceedance of one different constituent, does this
initiate an ACM?
8. Will the CAP continue on in perpetuity if there is no period of three consecutive years where there are no
constituent exceedances?
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
John Townson
MCIEAST Regional Environmental Progam Manager
Director, Environmental Management Division, GF
MCIEAST-MCB Camp Lejeune
910-451-5003
From: Montie, Jessica <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 4:50 PM
To: Montie, Jessica <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Notice of Comment Period for Readoption and Amendments to 15A NCAC 13B .0531-.0547,
.1105, .1111, and Sections .1600 and .1800 - C&D and MSW Landfill and Financial Assurance Rules
Notice is hereby given in accordance with G.S. 150B-21.2 and G.S. 150B-21.3A(c)(2)g. that the Environmental
Management Commission intends to adopt the rules cited as 15A NCAC 13B .1801-.1806, amend the rule cited as 15A
NCAC 13B .1105, readopt with substantive changes the rules cited as 15A NCAC 13B .0531-.0546, .1601-.1604, .1617-
.1637, .1680, and repeal through readoption the rules cited as 15A NCAC 13B .0547 and .1111.
Link to agency website pursuant to G.S. 15013-19.1(c): http://deg.nc.gov/permits-regulations/rules-
regulations/proposed-main
The Published Rulemaking Notice and Information including the Proposed Rule Text and the two Regulatory Impact and
Fiscal Analysis documents for the following rules: 15A NCAC 13B .0531-.0547 and Section .1600 for C&D and MSW
Landfills; and Rules .0546, .1105, .1111, .1628, and new Section .1800 for Financial Assurance for all Solid Waste
Management Facilities can be reviewed at https://deg.nc.gov/documents/15a-ncac-13b-0531-0547-1105-1111-1600-
and-1800.
Public Comment Period & Hearing Information
Public Comment Period: February 17, 2020 to April 17, 2020
A Public Hearing has been scheduled as follows:
Date: March 3, 2020

D-89
Montie, Jessica
From: David Lambert <[e-mail]>
Sent: February 24, 2020 4:06 PM
To: Montie, Jessica
Subject: [External] comments re: proposed rule changes
Attachments: comments on proposed SW rule changes.docx
�=Mmwrna I email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Jessica,
Please see the attached document for my thoughts and comments regarding the potential rule changes. They are
coming strictly from the operational viewpoint. Thanks for the opportunity to make input.
David Lambert
Director
Iredell County Solid Waste
354 Twin Oaks Rd.
Statesville, NC 28625
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
A frog does not drink up the pond in which it lives. - American Indian proverb
i

D-90
C-19 15A NCAC 13B Inspections - Includes practices and equipment
.1604 (b)(2)(J)(iii) 1. How do you legally define a practice; does it mean best
practices, industry standards?
2. "Monitoring and control equipment" is a bit open-ended. Could
this be made more specific? How could Solid Waste Specialist
possibly be trained to inspect and verify the multitude of brands
and devices encountered in the field. Would they be qualified to
verify calibrations or settings?
15A NCAC 13B
.1604 (b)(2)(J)(iv)
15A NCAC 13B
.1604(b)(2)(N)
1. What is the impetus for secondary sampling by the Department
if required sampling is done by independent engineers or
geologists on an approved schedule and tested by a certified lab?
2. How will the sampling or monitoring of groundwater and gases
be conducted? Will this supersede the requirements already in
place by Water Quality and Air Quality? The reporting
requirements for Air Quality are very stringent and it is unlikely
Solid Waste Specialist would exceed what's already required
elsewhere.
3. Finally, if the Department requires additional sampling
conducted by them or a split sample; who will be responsible for
payment, the permittee or the Department?
Additional Solid Waste Facilities and activities seem to be used
interchangeably here. I assume this mean a disposal unit or
building used in storing or processing waste however the next
sentence states any "proposed additional activities". Could that
mean anything installed such as a gas vent or French drain to
correct an immediate problem? What does activities mean?
C-22 &
15A NCAC 13B
Is the environmental compliance history only relevant if you're a
C-23
.1617(a)(1)(G) &
corporate owner or does it apply to municipally owned facilities as
.1617(b)(3) &
well? If applied to municipal facilities which may operate
.1617(c)(6)
independently of the other units of government is environmental
compliance specific to the solid waste department or could it
apply to the other departments of that specific municipality?
C-26 15A NCAC 13B It's doubtful if any facility would have the legal authority to control
.1618(c)(1)(E the transportation routes haulers might choose. Even if legal the
i enforcement would be impossible.
15A NCAC 13B I This seems a particularly onerous and expensive regulation for i
.1627(d)(3) facilities who have already in good faith provided engineered
closing plans which were approved by the Department. The Solid
Waste Specialist already conducts regular routine inspections of
closed facilities. With this being the case there is already a
mechanism in place to remediate any shortcomings.

.1s
Montie, Jessica
From: Deanna Coble Martin <[e-mail]>
Sent: March 16, 2020 1:05 PM
To: Montie, Jessica
Subject: [External] Public Comments
Attachments: denr letter (1).pdf
• ernal email. D-
[e-mail]
Please see enclosed letter
Deanna Coble Martin
Coble's Sandrock, Inc
Coble's Container Service
5833 Foster Store Rd
Liberty, NC 27298
336-565-4750 office
336-264-4894 cell
httr)://coblesinc.com Fcoblesinc.coml
0
Thank you.

MON
Deanna Marton
5444 Foster Store Rd
Li berty, NC 27298
336-264-4894
3/16/2D
Jessica Montle, Solid Waste Section
XC DEQ Division of Waste Management
1646 Maul Service Center
Raleigh, NC 2 7 69 9-1646>
To Whore It May Concern-
-
This letter is in oppmi ion of the Published Rulemalzing NaUce and Informnation including the
Proposed Rule Text and the two RegulatDry Impact and Fiscal Analvsis dwuments for the
following roles; 15A NCAC 13H .0531-,0547 and Seim ,1600 for C&D and MSW LandfiLls; and
Rules ,0 546..1 L05, ,1111, .162 8, and new Section .180& for Fiamidal Assurance for all Solid
Waste Management Facilitie s, T has a changes are an overre ach and unnecessary.
Many landfills are pr %gate and solve public landfills are located in small, sparsely populated
counties. This change in the ruies would put many out of business. All perxnAted landfills are
regulated, tested and monitored. These roles would cause the ina ease in the number of
ill%% unregulated landfills if the permitted ones are not able to operate. Imagine the pollution
the world would have if there were no regulated landfills. I understan4 !Pomewhatr of your
reasons for this. however, I believe it would h e more bL-nefiaal to support the permi#te-d
landfills rather than work against them.
Another reason this is a bad idea is that the money the landfills are spending in scarring
financial assurance bands, they could hire more workers, in turn that we uld help the economy
more by decreasing unemployment.
Sincere ly,
De
Deanna .Mm,tin
s

D-93
Montle, Jessica
From: Maddie German <[e-mail]>
Sent: March 19, 2020 3:00 PM
To: Montie, Jessica
Subject: [External] C&D comments
Attachments: Draft C&D Rules-V1-8-20_Comments.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Fr� [e-mail]
Hi Jessica,
Attached are comments related to the draft C&D regulations. These comments were crafted with the intent to create
the optimal rule set to support the industry while being protective of human health and the environment. As such,
similar to the SWS process, the entire rule was examined for practicality, efficiency, potential cost and usefulness.
I appreciate all the efforts the SWS has made to this point to ensure the next rule set benefits all the parties involved.
Thank you and have a great day.
Maddie German, PG
Municipal Engineering Services Co., P.A.
68 Shipwash Drive, Garner NC 27529
Office: 919.772.5393 x119
Mobile: [phone]
1

D-94
Draft C&D .0500 Rule Comments
Page Rule Number
B-1 15A NCAC 13B
.0531(b)(3)
B-3 15A NCAC 13B .0532
B-9
B-10
B-12
B-12
B-15
B-16
15A NCAC 13B
.0533(c)(2)
15A NCAC 13B
.0533(c)(3)(F)
15A NCAC 13B
.0533(c)(6)(A)
15A NCAC 13B
.0533(c)(6)(B)
15A NCAC 13B
.0534(b)(2)(J)
15A NCAC 13B
.0534(b)(2)(J)
B-16 15A NCAC 13B
.0534(b)(2)(K)
B-18 15A NCAC 13B
.0535(e)
B-20
B-25
15A NCAC 13B
.0536(c)(1)(E)
15A NCAC 13B
.0537(c)(1)
Comments
This is a major addition to all permitted facilities that requires new
regulations in Rules .0531 through .0546. Previous definition of these sites
required them to follow Rule .0547 only at time of closure (see deleted
text in (2) above.
No cost was provided to account for this impact to facilities
Should the operating record be defined?
(Areas susceptible to mass movement) redundant with unstable areas and
ka rst
In .0101(31) leachate defined slightly differently than in Article 9 Chapter
130A Definitions (16a)
We should have a timeline in which the DEQ must review the draft permit
Clarify this information is to contact a Division representative
Please clarify on who can request. Does there need to be a valid reason to
request the hearing?
Put a time limit on how long DEQ can take to publish the end date. For
example:"The Division shall publish the end date of the extended
comment period on the Divisions website within 10-days following the
public hearing."
"Inspection and Entry" Must be restricted to normal operating hours
Line 33 - Need clarification: What equipment, practices and monitoring?
Will DEQ inspectors be required to become certified by the manufacturers
for the different equipment on site? — this sentence is convoluted.
—line 4 related to monitoring: Include "Sample results must be submitted
to the owner within 7 days of receipt and the owner shall have the
opportunity to comment prior to uploading to laserfische or any public
portal. "
line 4 include after ambient air "to the extent authorized by G.S. 130A
Article 9.
—line 8 & 9 — This sentence should be deleted. It should not be in rule that
DEQ can request photos at any time.Final use? Images obtained by DEQ
should not be for marketing or distribution
Waste Exclusions — For C&D constructed with liner, can include C&D like
material, non- putrescible bulky waste, &other items that generally don't
break down easily. Also, ability to receive sludge. 4similar note in .0542
>>Is this part of the life of site permit? Clarification needed.
>>Using the term "Post -closure permit" is a problem. This language is
confusing because it implies an owner cannot close their facility of their
own free will.
>>GS 130A-295.3 does not require this information for closure permit. It
only requires this information for a new permit or permit amendment.
Please modify this language.
Does this present a homeland security safety issue?
Eliminate all reference to 5 years of operating capacity in the rule. This is
inconsistent with the intent of Life of Site rule.

M111
B-25
15A NCAC 13B
Please define phase of develop related to life of site, removing references
.0537(d)(1)(d)
to 5-year increments
B-27
15A NCAC 13B
(Traffic Study) needs to be included in financial impact
.0537(e)(4)
G.S. 130A-295.5 - is sanitary language intended to be inclusive of C&D? Is
this consistent throughout the SWMA and draft regulation?
B-27
15A NCAC 13B
(Study of Environmental Impacts) additional cost — needs to be included in
.0537(e)(5)
financial impact
B-28
15A NCAC 13B
Throughout this rule either define 'site' or replace with 'Landfill unit' or
.0538(a)(2)
other more descriptive term
B-29
15A NCAC 13B
Define dispersive characteristics. This is generic and it is unclear how this is
.0538(a)(4)(E)
unique from the other specific parameters listed.
B-30
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove "engineering plan that is required to be submitted
.0538(b)
in" The design hydro report is an extensive report (generally a 5-inch
binder of information) that is currently submitted as an appendix within
the Permit to Construct Application, not the Engineering Plan. This report
does not fit in the section and is two substantial to be submitted as an
appendix to an appendix. It will provide for less confusion when searching
for documents in the future to let this section be on its own.
B-32 15A NCAC 13B
Remove cement in line 23 related to type of grout
.0538(b)(2)(J)
B-34 15A NCAC 13B
DEQ please clarify the applicability of SL 2007-550:
.0539(f)
This section becomes effective 1 August 2007 and applies
to any application for a permit for a solid waste management facility that
is pending on that date. To the extent that G.S. 130A-295.6, as enacted by
this section, imposes requirements that are more stringent than those in
effect prior to 1 August 2007, the more stringent requirements do not
apply to:
(1) An amendment, modification, or other change to a permit for a landfill
issued on or before 1 June 2006.
(2) A permit for a horizontal or vertical expansion of the landfill permitted
on or before 1 June 2006.
(3) A permit to construct a new landfill within the facility boundary
identified in the facility plan of a landfill permitted on or before 1 June
2006.
(4) A permit to operate a new landfill if a permit to construct the new
landfill was issued on or before 1 June 2006.
(5) A permit for a sanitary landfill used only to dispose of waste generated
by a coal-fired generating unit that is owned or operated by an investor -
owned utility subject to the requirements of G.S. 143-215.107D.
(6) A permit for a sanitary landfill determined to be necessary by the
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources in order to respond to an
imminent hazard to public health or a natural disaster
B-37 15A NCAC 13B
Same comment as 15A NCAC 13B .0539(f) Please clarify the applicability of
.0540(9)
SL 2007-500 (see above comment in .0539).
B-41 15A NCAC 13B
Include "unless approved by the division" following disposal at the end of
.0542(d)
the first sentence. Since C&D will be lined, and current single lined MSW is
allowed to accept this waste, it should be an option on a site specific basis.
B-41 15A NCAC 13B
Remove sludge or edit to include approved by Division (see comment
.0542(e)(11)
.0542(d) )
B-42 15A NCAC 13B
Is the intent to limit the non C&D waste or to limit these specific items.
.0542(e)(15)
The intent of this item is unclear, therefore may be interpreted differently

MIN
in the future.
B-42 15A NCAC 13B
Please clarify which agency this may be to prevent future complications
.0542(e)(17)
with inappropriately certified locations
B-42 15A NCAC 13B
One-half acre is too small for a work area; this is a challenge due to
.0542(f)(1)
equipment and causes safety and operations issues. Recommend
removing the size restriction.
B-45 15A NCAC 13B
60 and 90 days may not be enough time for scheduling and work
.0542(m)
completion, depending on the season.
B-45 15A NCAC 13B
There is not always a certification , maybe say just say training, this
.0542(n)((1)(A)
wording is slightly unclear
B-51 15A NCAC 13B
Remove any references to the review boundary. It adds confusion and
.0544(b)(1)(B)
provides for inconsistencies of rule interpretation.
B-52 15A NCAC 13B
For constituents that are more affected by seasonal fluctuations, a true
.0544(b)(1)(D)
representation of background concentrations may not be captured in the
data to be utilized for statistical background comparisons in only six
months. Recommend changing to 12 months.
B-52 15A NCAC 13B
Additional 4 individual samples will be a direct cost increase
.0544(b)(1)(D)
B-52 15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove references to IMAC values.
.0544(b)(1)(D)
1. Interim maximum allowable concentrations should not be
included in the regulations as they have not been through an official
rule making process, have not been reviewed by the public or the
applicable voting bodies, there is not readily available information
related to the history of these parameters, what sites they were
originated for and the initial intent behind these numbers and
parameters. There is a process to establish 2L Standards and site
specific standards that is extensive and will be more accurate,
thoughtful and representative.
2. Using a interim maximum allowable concentration convolutes
the issue and potentially creates huge expenses in situations with
no potential harm and where the extreme actions frequently
requested by SWS are not warranted.
3. Facilities could be required to initiate assessment monitoring and/or
corrective action for IMAC exceedances that could no longer be
exceedances after the adoption of the proposed groundwater standard
B-53 15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove references to IMACs
.0544(b)(4)
See comment for 15A NCAC 13B .0544(b)(1)(D)
B-55 15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove all references to IMACs
.0544(b)(7)
See comment for 15A NCAC 13B .0544(b)(1)(D)
B--55 15A NCAC 13B
Recommend removing this item and having language indicating discussion
.0544(b)(7)(A)
should be provided in the semi-annual report related to constituents
detected in concentrations above their 2L Standards.
B--55 15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove of item B as the review of the history, trends and
.0544(b)(7)(B)(C)
potential alternate source be performed prior to any assessment activity.
Language should also be included to indicate this can be incorporated into
the semi-annual report text. Also B is covered in the last sentence of C
Additionally, 90-days is too short to complete complex ASD investigations,

MIN
and assessment should not be implemented while the investigation is
underway.
B-57 15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove all references to IMACs
.0544(b)(12)
See comment for 15A NCAC 13B .0544(b)(1)(D)
B-58 15A NCAC 13B
§258.23 only includes requirements for monitoring "methane gas"
.0544(d)(1)(A)
15A NCAC 13B .0544 (d)(1) requires the use of specialized monitoring
equipment or additional monitoring equipment than what is required for
§258.23, which is not addressed in the July 5, 2019, Draft Regulatory
Impact and Fiscal Analysis.
B-59 15A NCAC 13B
Remove text after such as
.0544(d)(3)(A)
B-61 15A NCAC 13B
One event is not representative to trigger all the cost related to
.0545(a)
investigation and assessment, which is not accounted for in financial
impact statement.
Remove all references to IMACs
See comment for 15A NCAC 13B .0544(b)(1)(D)
90 days is not enough for a successful alternate source demonstration.
Should be allowed to complete demonstration prior to assessment
monitoring (has been changed back to 30 days — comment still stands)
(minimum distance of contaminant travel) 0 feet? Rephrase for clarity
B-61 15A NCAC 13B
Does this include the subject property?
.0545(a)(1)
B-61 15A NCAC 13B
30-days is not enough time to complete a review and potential ASD. The
.0545(a)(2)
assessment process should not being if this step has not been completed.
B-61 15A NCAC 13B
>As written the rule suggests any one detection over a standard triggers
.0545(a)
assessment, therefore most sites would be in perpetual assessment —
practically, you want enough data that demonstrates an increasing trend
for particular constituents at locations outside the compliance boundary
before implementing any assessment processes
>Remove reference to IMACs
See comment for 15A NCAC 13B .0544(b)(1)(D).
B-61 15A NCAC 13B
Should not include IMACs. As written this assumes there has been a
.0545(a)(1)
release from the landfill. Remove the time restriction to allow a complete
alternate source demonstration to be performed.
B-61 15A NCAC 13B
>30 days is not enough time for a successful alternate source
.0545(a)(2)
demonstration. Should be allowed to complete demonstration prior to
assessment monitoring
>Don't list out specific individuals (was sufficient without added text)
B-61 15A NCAC 13B
>An Assessment Monitoring Work Plan is not required in §258.55.
.0545(b)
>The additional cost of preparing the Assessment Monitoring Work Plan
was not included in the July 5, 2019, Draft Regulatory Impact and Fiscal
Analysis.
B-61 15A NCAC 13B
This is unclear, minimum is zero feet or not moving— is this requesting
.0545(b)(1)(D)
monitoring in the landfill? what information is actually needed?
B-62 15A NCAC 13B
>Appendix II should be limited to the area of investigation, to prevent
.0545(b)(2)
needless expense for excessive monitoring of unrelated areas
>Line 6-7 reads that detections are caused by analysis — rewrite this item
>It should be clarified that additional Appendix II analysis is triggered only
by Appendix 11 exclusive (non Appendix 1) parameter detections.

D-98
>The last sentence should indicate only newly detected and confirmed
constituents would be reported.
B-62
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove all references to IMACs
.0545(b)(3)
See comment for 15A NCAC 13B .0544(b)(1)(D)
B-62 & B-63
15A NCAC 13B
>Remove this Item (including all subheadings)
.0545(c)
It is not the role of the Solid Waste Section to establish standards. If there
is not a NC 2L or EPA MCL, the division could request a standard be
promulgated appropriately, by existing mechanisms in 2L that include
going through a public comment and fiscal analysis for each standard to be
developed.
B-63
15A NCAC 13B
If no Appendix II detections is assessment still required? Is the rest of the
.0545(d)
assessment dependant on the results from the Appendix II analysis?
B-63
15A NCAC 13B
>Should be allowed to complete demonstration approved by DEQ prior to
.0545(d)(1)
entering assessment monitoring.
>Additional reporting is a burden on operators/owners and has not
historically been reviewed by SWS staff.
B-64
15A NCAC 13B
Only for App II or any detection?
.0545(d)(2)
Verification sample should be #1.
B-64
15A NCAC 13B
>Should be limited to area of concern not entire monitoring network —
.0545(d)(3)
that is an improper use of resources
>Results should be included in routine monitoring already established, the
SWS has a established track record of not reviewing routine
correspondence/reporting.
B-64
15A NCAC 13B
Change specify to approve — the owner/operator or their representative
.0545(d)(4)
should establish the network and parameters for approval
B-64
15A NCAC 13B
What does this represent? Monitoring in waste?
.0545(d)(5)(D)
B-64
15A NCAC 13B
>Item c is recommended for removal — recommend removing related
.0545(d)(6)
references
>As written (line 34 "made for each exceedance") the owner/operator
would be perpetually writing ASDs — recommend remove this added text
B-64
15A NCAC 13B
>Item c is recommended for removal — recommend removing related
.0545(d)(7)(A)
references
B-65
15A NCAC 13B
Cannot determine corrective measures if have not delineated and
.0545(d)(8)
assessed site conditions, also assumes a modified monitoring plan has
been created and approved.
B-65
15A NCAC 13B
"of completion" should be changed to "DEQ approval" as additional
.0545(f)
activities should not be requested beyond that point and there will be final
documents to reference.
B-68
15A NCAC 13B
Remove timelines, needs to be appropriate to get the work completed,
.0545(i)(1)
will be site specific.
B-68
15A NCAC 13B
Remove all references to IMACs
.0545(i)(1)(C)
See comment for 15A NCAC 13B .0544(b)(1)(D)
B-69
15A NCAC 13B
Remove timeline, should be based on site information
.0545(k)

1 •N
Montle, Jessica
From: Maddie German <[e-mail]>
Sent: March 19, 2020 3:00 PM
To: Montie, Jessica
Subject: [External] MSW comments
Attachments: Draft MSW Rules-V1-8-20_Comments.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
rep [e-mail]
Hi Jessica,
Attached are comments related to the draft MSW regulations. These comments were crafted with the intent to create
the optimal rule set to support the industry while being protective of human heath and the environment. As such,
similar to the SWS process, the entire rule was examined for practicality, efficiency, potential cost and usefulness.
I appreciate all the efforts the SWS has made to this point to ensure the next rule set benefits all the parties involved.
Thank you and have a great day.
Maddie German, PG
Municipal Engineering Services Co., P.A.
68 Shipwash Drive, Garner NC 27529
Office: 919.772.5393 x119
Mobile: [phone]
1

D-100
Page
Rule Number Comment
C-4
15A NCAC 13B removed lateral expansion definition, and not included in .0101 definitions
.1602(14) as of the 1-8-20 GWWMC meeting documents
vertical expansion also not defined and not include in .0101
C-7
15A NCAC 13B
"subsequent stage of landfill development"
.1603(a)(2)(A)
>not a defined term (neither in .1600 or .0101)
15A NCAC 13B
>vague and unclear
Draft permits — no language establishing a timeline for SWS to review; if
C-10
.1603(c)(2)(A)
documentation is requested to be submitted to DEQ in a timely fashion, it
should also be reviewed as such
C-14
15A NCAC 13B
Can anyone request a public hearing? Option to add language around I
.1603(c)(6)(A)(i)
who can request. Does there need to be a valid reason for people to
request the hearing?
C-18
15A NCAC 13B Routine inspections should be limited to posted operation hours
.1604(b)(2)(J) J
15A NCAC 13B Inspections - Includes practices and equipment
C-19
.1604 (b)(2)(J)(iii) 1. How do you inspect a practice, it is not tangable?
2. Monitoring and control equipment is not specific, maybe need "such as"
or to remove.
>the inspectors are not trained to determine if equipment is up to
manufacturer specifications, and they could potentially request actions
that may be the opposite of the manufacturer recommendations, or
potentially void warranties, or cause harm.
C-19
15A NCAC 13B
>Owner/operator needs at least 48 hours notice because the permittee
.1604 (b)(2)(J)(iv)
needs enough time to arrange to split samples
>Analytical results from sampling performed by DEQ or their
representative must be provided to the owner/operator within 7-days of
receipt and prior to publication on any public portal. The owner/operator
will be afforded time to comment prior to uploading data to any public
portal.
>recommend remove "Or as otherwise authorized" What is the intent of
this language? What are the limits?
This is poorly worded. Who has to split samples? Who is requesting to
C-19
15A NCAC 13B
.1604(b)(2)(K)(i)
split samples? The permittee shall be afforded the opportunity to split -
samples with DEQ sample collection. DEQ should notify in a reasonable
amount of time (minimum 48-hours) if they want to split samples with
15A NCAC 13B
site's consultant.
Add to the end of that item "The permittee may use an existing survey if
C-20
.1604(b)(2)(M)(i)
the survey was generated within 12 months of the permitte's receipt of the
Division's written request"
C-22
15A NCAC 13B
Section .1623(b) references that a hydro/geo report must be submitted in
.1617(a)(1)
the application described in this section (.1617(a)(1)), but Section
.1617(a)(1) does not required that a hydro/geo report must be submitted
with the PTC application.
C-22
15A NCAC 13B
Shouldn't this be updated from the first part of the landfill initially
.1617(a)(1)(B)
developed, this statement is unclear
C-22 &
15A NCAC 13B Is the environmental compliance history only relevant if you're a corporate
C-23
.1617(a)(1)(G) & owner? Are these two items linked? Possibly separate or make clear
.1617(b)(3) & they are tied together
.1617(c)(6)
_
C-23
15A NCAC 13B Post closure permit : GS 130A-295.3 does not require this information for
.1617(e) a closure permit. It only requires this information for a new permit or
permit amendment. Should this whole section be deleted?

C-25 I 15A NCAC 13B What is the notification? It is not defined. Is this from the SWS or the
.1618(a)(1) owner? SWS should not rule by letter/email/memo/policy etc.
C-25 15A NCAC 13B "and, if required by G.S. 89C, 89E, or 89F and not under the
.1618(b) purview of another licensed profession, and must shall be prepared by
licensed professional engineers, licensed geologists, licensed soil
scientists, or licensed professional land surveyors."
This language is problematic, because it suggests any of the listed
professions can perform all parts of the site study. It also assumes there
is no overlap between the professions, which is not the case.
Additionally, the engineering licensing board, due to their extensive
resources, is quick to question other professionals and individuals for
anything resembling engineering practices or even using the word
engineerina in a matter thev deem unfit.
C-26
15A NCAC 13B
This may be a safety issue
.1618(c) 1 (C)
_
Facilities cannot dictate which roads haulers will use to access facility. It
C-26
15A NCAC 13B
.1618(c)(1)(E
is a reasonable assumption that trucks could arrive via any route that
leads to the final disposal area.
C-30
15A NCAC 13B
Remove "in increments of five years" If the landfills are operating under
.1619(d)(2)(B)
the life of site conditions, they could construct and use more or less to suit
their needs. Keeping the outdated 5-year language in place does not
allow for the intended changes suggested by life -of -site permitting to be
implemented.
Use of stage is inconsistent with previous language related to phases of
C-31
15A NCAC 13B
.1619(e)(2)(B) ii
development. Stage is not a defined term.
C-33
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove "As required under Rule .1617 of this Section, the
.1620(a)
owner or and operator shall submit an engineering plan which that meets
the requirements of this Rule."
This statement adds no information and only references one location in
one separate rule where this rule is referenced.
C-33
15A NCAC 13B
Remove "that provides no less than approximately five years of operating
1620(c)
115A NCAC 13B
capacity, capacity and no more than the total facility capacity"
>Recommend remove this item. The design hydro is a substantial report
C-34
.1620(d)(4)
(generally a 5-inch binder of material) that makes more sense as a
standalone section within the PTC rather than an appendix inside an
appendix. This will provide less confusion when searching for documents
years in the future
> The life of site regulation was developed to provide the most options for
owners, this language keeps the past method of 5-years cells which is
15A NCAC 13B
opposite of the intent of life of site.
I'llwithin the physical capabilities of the available facilities" This statement
C-36
.1622(1)
is unclear. What does this mean/What is the intent? Is this about the
airport or the landfill? What affect does this have on locating the landfill?
C-41
15A NCAC 13B 15A NCAC 02B .0200 is a section of rules (it is the same as referencing
.1622((9)(b) the .1600 rules). It would be more clear and useful to reference the
specific rule number intended, rather than an entire section of rules.
"or in watersheds of other water bodies which indicate that no new
discharging landfills are allowed," ..... remove added language. OR
remove everything past Clean Water Act on line 13
Keep "new" otherwise unclear if for all permitted, new permits, modified
permits, new ownership. When does this restriction apply?
I Can it be clear someplace RO water will not be treated the same as

iDISION
leachate?
C43
15A NCAC 13B
>Strike field logs and notes, this information is contained on boring logs
.1623(a)(3)
and well construction records.
>Remove additional verbiage "Field logs and notes shall be legible; and
may be typewritten" added to clarify field logs and notes, but only
convolutes the issue
C43
15A NCAC 13B
What are dispersive characteristics, this is not defined. How are these
.1623(a)(4)(e)
characteristics different than hydraulic conductivity, porosity and effective
porosity? What additional information is being requested that is not
already included in the clearly stated parameters presented?
C-45
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend remove "included in the engineering plan that is required to
.1623(b)
be" this allows for the Design Hydro Report to be submitted as its own
section within the PTC, which is standard practice. The Design Hydro
report is generally a 5inch binder sized report containing its own tables,
figures and appendicies that would become cumbersome and confusing
in the future when trying to locate historical information.
C-46
15A NCAC 13B
Remove cement — in the event there is additional cut following well
.1623(b)(2)(1)
abandonment there could be fractures within the well column, bentonite
grout is flexible and forgiving if additional site work is to be completed
following well abandonment
In trying to get specific there is increased conflict with 2C as well as the
intent of the rule, which is to prevent a preferential pathway to
groundwater. The previous language requested the wells to be
abandoned properly in accordance with the existing well drilling and
abandonment regulations, which is still applicable and fulfills the needs of
the rule.
Remove the last sentence "The level of the grout within the boring shall
not exceed in height the elevation of the proposed base grade." This is
open ended as to if you are leaving an open borehole if the basegrades
i
have not been cut, which is dangerous and problematic as it counters 2C.
This entire section belongs in the monitoring plans.
C47
15A NCAC 13B
.1623(b)(3)(B)
>It is inconsistent with water quality monitoring reports, as surface water
monitoring is generally included as part of the site monitoring plan,
therefore that information would be presented in the section of the PTC
for site water quality monitoring and should not be confusing the issue
with additional sections throughout the rules.
Not all sites have surface water on the property, some language
C-47
15A NCAC 13B
.1 623b 3 B i
referencing site specifics needs to be included
C47
15A NCAC 13B
The monitoring frequency should be based on site conditions, especially
.1 623b 3 B iv
for the closure andpost-closure periods
C-47
15A NCAC 13B
What information is this line item requesting? It is unclear that this is
.1 623b 3 B v
more than a general description of readily available information.
C-48
15A NCAC 13B
(unclear if this is part of (vi) or its own item, likely formatting)
.1623(b)(3)(B)
It is not a logical progression for a onetime exceedance of a 02B
Standard to move to establishing a different standard for the site. This is
extreme escalation without supporting information. Different language
related to potential investigation based on historical data, trends and site
conditions might be a more scientifically accurate and reasonable
response. i
C48
15A NCAC 13B
The monitoring plan cannot be effective in providing early detection, it is a
.1 623b 3 C
document
C48
15A NCAC 13B
Remove "of concern" - Constituents of concern have not been identified in

D-103
.1623(b)(3)(C)
any general plan, unless every parameter on all potential sampling lists
are considered constituents of concern. Perhaps say "monitored
constituents" or reference the Appendix I of 40 CFR 258.
C-49
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend add "as of the date of the initial Facility Plan approval" to the
.1624(b)
end of the presented statement.
C-51
15A NCAC 13B The wording on this item is confusing. It is unclear if a buffer is required
.1624(b)(3)(D) or if as long as the owner can demonstrate they are able to monitor
landfill units independently they could potentially be a piggy back or
minimally spaced.
To be clear based on the definition of Landfill unit, only when switching
types of waste are there separate monitoring requirements; so
subsequent fill areas of MSW would all be under the same monitoring
plan regardless of the date.
C-57
15A NCAC 13B
Instead of "using technology such as electronic leak detection" maybe say
.1624(b)(10 C v
"in compliance with the approved site CQA plan".
C-61
15A NCAC 13B
This item might fit better under operational requirements as it doesn't
.1624(b)(17)
really speak to the design conditions for the landfill; but rather fill capacity
and height.
C-62
15A NCAC 13B
Is there a mechanism for having the ops plan updateable without going
.1625(b)
through an extensive review and renewal process? If it is easier to keep
this document updated, sites will have increased compliance.
C-68 $
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend replacing "prevent" with "minimize"; as it more accurately
C-69
.1626(7)(a) &
reflects the purpose and limitations of erosion and sediment control
.1626(7)(b)
features ,
C-70
15A NCAC 13B .
Not all training is for certifications, there should be a training log or
.1626(10)(a)(i)
attendance record, but "certification" is an inaccurate term for the
requested information
C-70
15A NCAC 13B
Remove "paper format or in an electronic format" to provide the most
.1626(10)(b)
options
>Could also reword to "The information contained in the operating record
may be recorded and retained in a format that is accessible and viewable
by the Division, such as paper or electronic."
C-75
15A NCAC 13B
>>Unsettling that there is potentially a never ending period of 5 year
.1627(d)(3)
reports.
>>What is the SWS looking for but not stating that would require the seal
of a licensed engineer?
C-78
15A NCAC 13B
"before waste can be placed in the unit" — the way this sentence reads
.1630
presently it appears every site needs to go through an assessment and
corrective action process before they can use their landfill.
Simpler, cleaner language might be: "As applicable, owners or operators
of MSWLF units shall comply with the groundwater monitoring,
assessment, and corrective action requirements under Rules .1630
through .1637 of this Section." i
C-81
15A NCAC 13B
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC)
.1631(g)
from all rule language
Interim maximum allowable concentrations should not be included in the
regulations as they have not been through an official rule making process,
have not been reviewed by the public or the applicable voting bodies,
there is not readily available information related to the history of these
parameters, what sites they were originated for and the initial intent
behind these numbers and parameters. There is a process to establish
2L Standards and site specific standards that is extensive and will be

D-104
more accurate, thoughtful and representative.
Using a interim maximum allowable concentration convolutes the issue
and potentially creates huge expenses in situations with no potential harm
and where the extreme actions frequently requested by SWS are not
warranted.
Facilities could be required to initiate assessment monitoring and/or
corrective action for IMAC exceedances that could no longer be
exceedances after the adoption of the proposed groundwater standard.
C-83
15A NCAC 13B
Can the reference to 40CFR 258 be more specific? It currently
.1632(f)
references the entire regulation which is not helpful it you are trying to
look up the reference, or gain additional information about this item.
C-83
15A NCAC 13B
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC)
.1632(g)
from all rule language
See comment regarding 15A NCAC 13B .1631(g)
Simpler, cleaner language might be "...to determine if there is an
exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard or the groundwater
15A NCAC 13B
protection standard as defined..."
Recommend removing "calculations of providing the flow rate and
C-84
.1 632i
references is sufficient
C-84
15A NCAC 13B
Check reference: .1634(g) appears to be suggested for removal from
.1 632i
this 1-8-20 version of the draft rules
C-86
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend removing the first sentence about monitoring frequency, that
.1633(b)
is discussed and more applicable in .1633 (c) Or adding a reference to
item c
C-86
15 NCAC 13B
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC)
.1633(d)
from all rule language
See comment regarding 15A NCAC 13B .1631
As presented, this notice is for any constituent at any time that is detected
C-86
15A NCAC 13B
.1633(d)(1)
at a concentration above its 2L or site specific standard, which for some
sites suggests an additional step of reporting is being requested for every
monitoring event.
Assessment monitoring is a dramatic jump from an unverified, un-
C-86
15A NCAC 13B
.1633(d)(2)
researched, single event sample.
90 days is not enough time to verify the sample, and perform the
necessary due diligence that is required prior to a site entering
Assessment Monitoring.
A site entering Assessment Monitoring is a significant undertaking in both
time and cost, therefore, it is shortsighted for the SWS to use the term in
this situation where that program is not an appropriate response
C-87
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend this item be first in this section, as it provides the appropriate
.1633(d)(3)
investigative order for sample results that are either abnormal or may
have been found at a concentration above a 2L Standard.
90 days is not enough time to complete resampling, historical
investigations, alternate source demonstrations, or other actions that
might be needed when verifying sample results or the necessity of
additional actions.
It should be clear in this section no Assessment Monitoring program, work
plan, etc is requested or required by the SWS until a determination that

113i[111
verifies it is necessary has been provided by the owner
C-88
15A NCAC 13B
The additional cost of preparing the Assessment Monitoring Work Plan
.1634(a)
was not included in the July 5, 2019, Draft Regulatory Impact and Fiscal
Analysis.
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC)
from all rule language
_I
15A NCAC 13B
See comment regarding 15A NCAC 13B .1631(g)
C-88
The reference to .1633(c)(2) does not make sense here
.1634(b)
90-days is not enough time to complete an entire assessment, if one is
determined to be necessary
Additional wells should not be required, should be installed on an as
C-88
15A NCAC 13B
.1 634b 1
needed basis
C-88
15A NCAC 13B
Appendix II monitoring should be limited to wells of concern, not all
.1 634b 2
downgradient wells at the site. This is a waste of resources.
C-89
15A NCAC 13B
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC)
.1634(b)(3)
from all rule language
See comment regarding 15A NCAC 13B .1631
C-89
15A NCAC 13B
Double check references to 1631(a)(1) and .1632; they don't seem to fit
.1 634b 3 D
here
C-89
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend removing this section, this creates the same problem as with
.1634(b)(4)
IMACs (See comment regarding 15A NCAC 13B .1631(g))
Recommend using site specific standards approved by the Division
insead of Division established numbers
Any Division generated number should require explicit short term use,
and not be permitted to remain in perpetuity. They should also be
approved by the EMC, or another body to prevent improper or unintended
use causing potential harm to the industry.
C-90
15A NCAC 13B
Double check references to 1631(a)(1) and .1632; they don't seem to fit
.1 634b 6
here
C-90
15A NCAC 13B
Assessment monitoring should only be performed if warranted, this
.1634(c)
statement presents regardless of the confirmation sampling and other
information, assessment monitoring will progress.
C-90
15A NCAC 13B
It is unclear if this is an additional report separate from the routine
.1634(c)(1)
monitoring reports.
.1632(i) is the requirements for routine monitoring events, it does not
make sense to have multiple reports submitted.
Edit to say "available boring logs and well construction records" as not all
records are readily available.
C-90
15A NCAC 13B
This should be limited to detections over a NC 2L Standard or EPA MCL
.1634(c)(2)
value
Should this say App II exclusive?
C-90
15A NCAC 13B
.1 634c 3
C-90
15A NCAC 13B
Assessment monitoring should be limited to wells within the area of
.1634(c)(4)
concern
C-91
15A NCAC 13B
Remove "no less than annually" - site monitoring should be based on site
.1634(c)(6)
specific needs. Not every well at every site should be or needs to be
sampled each year.
C-91
15A NCAC 13B
Remove "each exceedance", it implies an entire assessment report needs

i.M11iy
.1634(d)
to be conducted and submitted separately for each unique sample and
sample location detected above a 2L Standard.
C-91
15A NCAC 13B
It should be clear in the rule that an alternate source demonstration
.1634(d)
should be conducted before commencing any assessment activities
Recommend removing "including initiating an assessment of corrective
measures in accordance with Paragraph (f) of this Rule."
An evaluation of corrective measures should not be conducted if the
assessment is incomplete.
_
15A NCAC 13B
What does initiate mean?
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC)
C-91
.1634(e)(1)
from all rule language
See comment regarding 15A NCAC 13B .1631(g)
C-91
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend revising to read: "the extent of plume migration has been
.1 634e 2
identified"
C-91
15A NCAC 13B
Assessment of corrective measures should not be conducted before
.1634(f)
assessment. It is logical to be included as part of the Assessment Report
C-95
15A NCAC 13B
Is this appendix II exclusive, because Appendix I parameters are included
.1635(a)
in Appendix II.
Is this intended to be included as part of assessment or following
completion of assessment?
C-95
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend changing "completion" to "DEQ approval"
.1635(d)
C-95 &
15A NCAC 13B
There should be language that a discussion of potential corrective
C-96
.1635 & .1636
measures and/or selected remedy may be included within the
assessment report, or at a minimum indicate this does not need to be a
15A NCAC 13B
stand-alone report _
Recommended remove interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAC)
C-96
.1636(b)(2)
from all rule language
See comment regarding 15A NCAC 13B .1631(g)
C-99
15A NCAC 13B
Recommend removing the time restriction. The point of life of site is to
.1637(b)
get away from required check in's with DEQ every 5 years. This report,
which is quite costly, should only be submitted if it is needed which is
determined based on site specific information and will be reviewed by the
folks directly involved with that particular site.
The most cost effective and efficient manner to handle any corrective
action is to allow the owner to work on a site specific basis, for actions
and reporting.
Recommend adding language on a timeline approved by the division
C-101
15A NCAC 13B
Keep as 2 consecutive events, to be consistent with other SWS
.1637(f)(2)
regulations and industry practice.
C-101
15A NCAC 13B
This doesn't add anything to the rule
.1 6373