State of Minnesota Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Transcription

1

2 State of Minnesota Minnesota Pollution Control Agency In the Matter of Proposed Amendments to Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7001 and 7035 Governing Compost Facilities. MPCA Post-Hearing Response to Public Comments April 14, 2014 MPCA Post-Hearing Response to Public Comments. I. Introduction A. Notice and Hearing The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Agency or MPCA) published a Dual Notice of Intent to Adopt Proposed Amendments to Minn. R. chs and 7035, and hold a Public Hearing, 1 together with the proposed amendments 2 in the Minnesota State Register on January 6, 2014 (38 SR 973). The required number of requests to hold a hearing were received during the public comment period. 3 The MPCA presented information to demonstrate that the proposed amendments are needed and reasonable in the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) 4 introduced in the administrative record at the public hearing held on March 24, The MPCA presented additional information during the public hearing which was held in St. Paul and simultaneously at two of the MPCA s Regional Offices via interactive videoconferencing. At the request of stakeholders, MPCA made the hearing available for viewing and listening via a Webex internet connection and recorded the hearings. B. Review of comments and organization of this document This document is MPCA s response to comments received during the pre-hearing comment period which ended on March 7, 2014; testimony and submittals entered into the record at the public hearing; and comments submitted during the post-hearing comment period and 1 Hearing Exhibit 6f. 2 Hearing Exhibit 3. 3 Hearing Exhibit Hearing Exhibit 4.

3 available to the MPCA through April 11, This document supplements information provided by the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR). For ease of reference, comment letters received have been numbered sequentially. The number corresponds to the number assigned to the letter as it was submitted. All comments are posted in their entirety on the MPCA webpage for this rulemaking. 5 Attachment 1 provides the numbered index of pre-hearing and post-hearing comment letters, non-mpca public hearing exhibits and hearing testimony referenced in this document. A single comment letter may address multiple issues or multiple parts of the proposed rule. Each distinguishable comment within a letter has been labeled alphabetically. For example, if comment letter 1 addresses two issues, the first issue is labeled 1-A and the second issue is labeled 1-B in this document. In addition, there were many comments about the relationship between the proposed rule and studies conducted under one or more grant agreements with Carver County. These comments have been grouped into three general themes and are referred to as General Comment A, General Comment B or General Comment C in this document. With respect to testimony and submittals entered into the record at the public hearing, comments that are reiterations of comments previously submitted by the same individual or organization are treated as addressed through the MPCA s response to the original submittal and are not addressed separately. New comments raised in testimony or submittals entered into the record at the public hearing are addressed and identified as either Public Hearing Exhibit (#) or Public Hearing Testimony of (name). II. Proposed Changes to the Rule Amendments, as Published in the Minnesota State Register on January 6, 2014 After review and careful consideration of comments, MPCA proposes several changes to the rule as published in the Minnesota State Register on January 6, Attachment 2 includes these proposed changes. Attachment 2 supersedes Hearing Exhibit 13 because additional changes are proposed to the rule sections in Hearing Exhibit 13. Each of the proposed changes in Attachment 2 are included and discussed in part III. of this document immediately following public comments on the related rule section. The need and reasonableness of the each proposed rule section is established in the SONAR. Any additional statements of need and reasonableness for the proposed changes in Attachment 2 are included in part III. of this document at the point where the additional change is discussed. 5 Page 2 of 44

4 Minnesota Stat , subd. 2, establishes the standard to assess if a change is substantially different than the proposed rule. The changes proposed in Attachment 2 are not substantial because: The changes are within the scope of the matter announced in the notice of hearing; The changes are a direct and logical outgrowth of comments submitted in response to the notice of hearing; The notice of hearing provided fair notice to persons interested in and affected by the rule amendments that the additional changes would be part of the rule in question; The additional changes do not change in any way the group of persons who will be affected by the rule; The subject matter of the additional changes is the same as the subject matter contained in the notice of hearing; and The additional changes do not alter the effects of the rule proposed in the hearing notice. III. Responses to Comments The MPCA s responses to comments in this part is organized sequentially by proposed rule section. Each rule section is followed by a listing of the comments, by index number, related to the rule section. The comments are summarized and not presented verbatim. Some comments were not directly related to a rule section, including the comments about the relationship between the proposed rule and the Carver County studies. The comments on the Carver County study are presented first, followed by comments organized by rule section, and finally comments not related to a rule section. A. Carver County projects The Agency funded three separate projects with Carver County: project - Commingling Residential Organics With Yard Waste project - Continuation & Expansion Of The Commercial & Residential Co-collected Organics Composting Project project - Scientific Evaluation of Contact & Storm Water from the Organics Demonstration Site - consisted of two phases. The final report is expected to be complete during the summer of a. Phase 1- using suction lysimeters and sheet flow collection in 2012 b. Phase 2- using a collection lysimeter, in 2013, is ongoing and expected to be complete during the summer of 2014 Page 3 of 44

5 1. The following comments relate to the Carver County project: Comment 72 Public Hearing Exhibit 87 Testimony by Victoria Reinhardt Public Hearing Exhibit 88 Testimony of Marcus Zbinden Public Hearing Exhibit Testimony of Sarah Braman Public Hearing Exhibits Testimony of Ginny Black Public Hearing Exhibits Testimony of Jim Aiken Public Hearing Exhibit 95 Submitted by Dan Heitzman Public Hearing Testimony of Ali Durgunoglu Public Hearing Testimony of John Jaimez Public Hearing Testimony of Trudy Richter a. General Comment A The Agency should not have proposed the rules until the 2014 Carver County study was completed. The Agency proposes the rules with knowledge of the data and analysis from the 2008 and 2010 Carver County projects, as well as data from the 2014 project. The rule was not delayed to await final analysis of the 2014 project because of significant limitations with both phases that limit the applicability of the data. Phase 1 involved collection of infiltrating contact water through suction lysimeters. Phase 2 utilized a collection lysimeter (liner system) so the total volume of water in the system could be evaluated. Each design had limitations. Limitations that applied to both designs included: The rain simulator used to ensure rainfall limited the height of the test piles to approximately 4 feet rather than the 12 feet allowed under the proposed rule; The simulated rain was inconsistently applied across the entire pile resulting in the center of the pile becoming saturated while the edges were hardly wetted; The quantity of simulated rain intended to be applied to the pile over a 24 hour period was applied over 3½ hours; and The contact water data set consists of very few data points. Additional limitations related to the phase 1 suction lysimeter tests included: Sufficient sample volumes were difficult to obtain due to sampler limitations; Total volume of contact water generated cannot be determined; Samplers may add or subtract chemical constituents by leaching or absorption; The time necessary to extract a sample may exceed sample holding times for accurate analysis; and Page 4 of 44

6 Chemical equilibria and standards were not established when using ceramic cup suction lysimeters. Additional limitations related to the phase 2 collection lysimeter (liner system) included: The piles were turned once rather than the three to five times as required under the proposed rules; The test pad aggregate was different from that which would be required under the proposed rule; The test pad aggregate was compacted with a vibrating plate tamper rather than compacted by heavy equipment as would typically be used in constructing a large aggregate pad; Heavy equipment was not driven on the test pads as is typical at an operating site; and The compost piles were mixed from a single truckload of commercial and residential organics. Given these limitations, the perceived value of completing the proposed rule exceeded the perceived value of waiting for the finalized data. Further delays ensure that more organic material is managed via landfilling or incineration, which are less preferred alternatives to composting as established in the hierarchy under the Minnesota Waste Management Act. 6 b. General Comment B The Agency ignored data or assigned some data inappropriate weight. Some stakeholders suggested that the Agency ignored or should have assigned more weight to components of the ongoing third project at Carver County, and thus the proposed rules should be based on the preliminary data. Others suggested that this third project is not representative of composting operations, and thus the proposed rules should be based on data from the first 6 Minn. Stat. 115A.02. LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION OF POLICY; PURPOSES. (b) The waste management goal of the state is to foster an integrated waste management system in a manner appropriate to the characteristics of the waste stream and thereby protect the state's land, air, water, and other natural resources and the public health. The following waste management practices are in order of preference: (1) waste reduction and reuse; (2) waste recycling; (3) composting of source-separated compostable materials, including but not limited to, yard waste and food waste; (4) resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration; (5) land disposal which produces no measurable methane gas or which involves the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on site or for sale; and (6) land disposal which produces measurable methane and which does not involve the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on site or for sale. Page 5 of 44

7 and second projects. Information and data from each of the three projects was considered in the development of the proposed rules. In addition to considering information and data from the three Carver County projects, the MPCA also considered a great deal of other information in developing the rule, including: The studies referenced in Hearing Exhibit 15. Information submitted to the MPCA during the informal stakeholder comment periods; Contact water data submitted to the agency from composting facilities; Regulations for compost facilities in other states; and The professional expertise and experience of our policy and technical staff. Every study reviewed by the Agency, including each round of research from Carver County, has its own challenges and limitations. However, each study also further informs MPCA s understanding of composting s potential environmental benefits and risks. The Agency assessed each source of information, and through careful deliberations, used those sources collectively to develop the proposed rule. c. General Comment C The proposed rule is too restrictive (or conversely, too permissive). Several commenters suggest that the proposed rules are too restrictive because some soil types from early drafts of Part subp. 9, item B, subitem 8 were eliminated in the final proposed rule. A previous draft, released for stakeholder comment, contained a total of nine soil types. Three soil types were eliminated from the proposed rules because the soils have higher rates of permeability. The decision to take this more conservative approach was made after the Agency reviewed preliminary data from phase 2 of the 2014 Carver County project. Preliminary data suggest a previously unrecognized potential for water quality impacts. Given the preliminary and limited nature of this infiltrating contact water data, the Agency acted to increase the protectiveness of the proposed rules. The Agency outlined the reasons the six soil types were selected in the SONAR pp. 27 through 28. Conversely, other commenters suggested that the proposed rules are too permissive and that the proposed rules virtually guarantee contamination of waters of the state. One commenter presented analyses of the contact water from a hypothetical compost facility hydrology. The MPCA finds the commenter s hydrological analysis to be generally credible. However, the Agency disagrees with the commenter s assertions about the quality and quantity of infiltrating contact water, and therefore, disagrees with the commenter s conclusions; the commenter s assertions are based on the ongoing third Carver County project. The Agency s disagreement about the quality and quantity of infiltrating contact water is based on the study limitations discussed in General Comment A and MPCA Response above. Page 6 of 44

8 As discussed in the SONAR for Part on pages 26 through 28, the proposed rules establish a level of protection consistent with the goals and mandates of the MPCA and the State of Minnesota to protect waters of the state and manage waste in accordance with the hierarchy established in the Minnesota Waste Management Act. The Agency believes that six eligible soil types in combination with a hard packed all-weather drivable surface and the operational requirements established in the proposed rule, are adequately protective of waters of the state. Testimony and public comments related to the Carver County research are primarily tied to the provisions of the rule that assess which conditions are needed for compost facilities to utilize a hard packed all-weather working surface for a composting pad. It is important to note that facilities that are in areas of the state that do not have the six approved soil types may utilize a pad system as provided for in Part , subp. 9, item B, subitem 9. Alternatively, facilities may pursue use of an alternative liner system as allowed in Part , subp. 9, item B, subitem 9 (c). The provisions related to contact water management are necessary and reasonable because of the possibility that contact water may contain constituents of concern. The need and reasonableness of this provision is addressed on page 26 of the SONAR. The rule under Part , subp 9, item B, subitem 4 requires that contact water is collected and managed through a treatment system. This provision, along with the other requirements established in Part , subps. 8 through 11, ensure that all permitted compost facilities in Minnesota are adequately protective of groundwater and surface waters. B. Comments organized by rule section Part EXTENDED PERMIT PROCESS 2. Comment 70-A ( ): (extended permit) The commenter supports the addition of an extended permit option for owners/operators of a source-separated organics compositing facility. The commenter supports the rule. Page 7 of 44

9 Part FINAL APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPOST FACILITIES 3. Comment 5-A ( , item B): (consistency of terms) The commenter recommends that the Agency use terms in item B that are consistent with the rest of the document, where run-off and run-on are listed as storm water and surface water and leachate was removed or changed to contact water. MPCA is not proposing a change to Part , item B, which applies to all compost facilities, not only Source Separated Organic Material (SSOM) compost facilities. The terms runoff and run-on are used throughout the solid waste rules and are not specific to compost or SSOM compost facilities. 4. Comment 65-A ( , item E): (rejects and residuals) The commenter states, Rejects and Residuals defined by this proposed rule are often reused in the composting process or as a beneficial reuse product, and recommends alternative language to replace disposal with management. The draft rule allows residuals to be reincorporated into windrows provided the residuals are managed to meet the provisions established under the draft rule. The draft rule uses language consistent with the commenters proposal utilizing the term management for residuals under proposed Part , subp. 9, item B, subitem 5. The draft rule does allow residuals to be reincorporated back into the composting process when appropriate. Further detail regarding considerations for management of residuals are outlined in the SONAR on pages 26 and 38. Page 38 of the SONAR notes that Similarly, residuals (compostable materials that need additional time to decompose in the composting process) must be stored to prevent nuisance conditions and reincorporated back into the composting process in a timely manner or disposed of to prevent odors, litter, or vector intrusion. It is also worth noting that if a compost facility creates a mulch product that does not require further composting, such a product, with MPCA Commissioner approval, would fall outside the definition of residuals since it does not require further composting. As such that mulch product would not be subject to the draft rule requirements for management of residuals. Part applies to all compost facilities, not only SSOM compost facilities. The terms rejects and residuals are used through the solid waste rules and are not specific to compost or SSOM compost facilities. Page 8 of 44

10 Part EXTENDED PERMIT NOTIFICATION AND TERMINATION PROCEDURES 5. Comment 29-D ( ): (periodic permitting and information) The commenter asks the MPCA to require periodic re-permitting for all compost facilities in order to track and document long-term environmental and health effects at each location, especially those that have been grandfathered in before these rules came into effect. In addition, the commenter asks the Agency to disclose information to townships and counties when proposing projects; and hold site owners liable for any misinformation presented. The proposed rules will apply to all SSOM composting facilities and periodic permitting is required under the proposed rules. Any facility currently operating under short-term Demonstration Research Project Agreements must meet all rule requirements when permitted. All permitted facilities must submit permit extension notification forms every 5 years. All permitted facilities must submit annual reports with information on operations and compliance. Annual reports are available to anyone as a public document. Part DEFINITIONS 6. Comments 5-B, 72-K, and 79-B ( , subp. 20a): (test methods, residuals and contact water, and PFRP) The commenter notes that the rule cites the Solvita maturity index several times as an indicator of compost stability, which the commenter asserts is an inappropriate endorsement unless the Agency adopts this specific industry testing method as the standard; the commenter suggests amending the language to allow the operator to choose any test method compliant with the U.S. Composting Council s Test Method for the Examination of Composting and Compost. In addition, the commenter proposes alternative language to remove the word residuals from the definition of contact water and to replace the word active in the description of the Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) with clearer wording that is consistent with part subp. 9, item B, subitems 3 and 9. One commenter contests the MPCA s claim on page 24 of the SONAR that water that contacts rejects and residuals after they meet PFRP present a greater environmental risk than storm water and should be held to a higher standard. The commenter offers alternative language from a fact sheet (attached as an appendix) outlining the compost-screening process at the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum site, which the commenter argues demonstrates that residuals are comparable to finished compost except in size. The need and reasonableness of the compost maturity testing requirements is discussed on pages 25 through 26 of the SONAR. In consideration of the comments received regarding the need for more flexibility with maturity testing methods and for consistency with other relevant Page 9 of 44

11 parts of the proposed rule and the determination that some flexibility is warranted and reasonable, the MPCA is proposing the following changes to the proposed revisions affecting SSOM compost sites. Page 24 of the SONAR discusses contact water that has come in contact with SSOM in the active compost area. Once compost has reached PFRP and has been determined through analysis to be in the curing stage, the water leaving it may be treated as storm water. Proposed change to the rule amendments as published: DEFINITIONS. Subp. 20a. Contact water. Contact water means water that has come into contact with source-separated organic material in the tipping area, sourceseparated organic material in the mixing area, rejects, residuals, or active compost. For purposes of this subpart, compost is active until it has reached PFRP as described in part , subpart 11, item B, subitem (10), and the Solvita maturity index is greater than or equal to five with ammonia greater than or equal to four. An owner or operator may use an alternative test method as provided by part , subpart 9, item B, subitems (3) and (9). 7. Comment 1-C, 5-C, 5-I, 12-A, 48-B, 58-H, 65-B, 65-E, 77-B and 79-G ( , subp. 20a, 92a, and 93b): (rejects, residuals, and contact water) Several commenter s objected to various aspects of the definitions of rejects, residuals, and how these terms were connected to the definition of contact water. One commenter asserts that the rule should make a distinction between Item A of the definition of rejects and Items B, C, and D. Specifically, Items B, C, and D materials should be rejected at the gate or the tipping floor or removed from the site by the end of each day. Whereas Item A materials cannot be separated until screening and are environmentally benign because they mostly consist of plastic and rocks. One commenter objects to the inclusion of residual in the definition of contact water and believes that it would be an unnecessary hardship to require that residuals that have completed the PFRP process be managed in the same way as uncomposted SSOM and other material that has not completed the PFRP process. See response to comment 30 on pages 25 and 26 below in this document. Page 10 of 44

12 8. Comment 65-C ( , subp. 93b): (residuals) The commenter recommends that the Agency remove the descriptor such as tree branches from the definition of residuals because the term branches is vague and not measurable. The example of tree branches used in the definition is not exclusive. A tree branch was used because it is a recognizable material that does not need further defining. 9. Comments 5-F, 79-D ( , subp. 105a) (other wastes and case-by-case) The commenter points out that: Other states allow for the composting of animal wastes, fish wastes, and meat by products without the need for additional approval. The MPCA has not provided scientific data that supports the need to have special consideration for composting in the State. Furthermore, we understand that may allow for well- -managed compost sites to test the compostability of new feed stocks in the future while some sites are already allowed to compost items listed in Section B. The commenter makes the following two recommendations with suggested rule language revisions: Allow animal waste and fish waste and meat by-products from industrial and manufacturing processes to be included as acceptable materials at SSO compost facilities. Add language that permits the Commissioner to approve additional material on a case by case basis. This will accommodate future request without the need to amend the rules. Although other states may allow for the composting of animal wastes, fish waste, and meat byproducts without the need for approval, the proposed SSOM rule specifically exclude these materials to ensure they are properly managed. Part allows special conditions to be placed in a permit. This process allows permitting staff to review the proposed management of materials that typically require additional processing or unusual composting conditions. The MPCA believes that the proposed rule as drafted is adequate for the intended purpose of capturing SSOM from going into the landfill. The other wastes suggested by the commenter can be composted under certain permit conditions. The following change was made to clarify the Agency s intent as the term animal wastes does include both animal manure and animal carcasses. Proposed change to the rule amendments as published: DEFINITIONS. Subp. 105a. Source-separated organic material. A. Unless specifically permitted by the commissioner under part , source-separated organic material does not include: (1) animal wastes, such as manure or carcasses; Page 11 of 44

13 10. Comment 12-C ( , subp. 105a) (manure and bedding) The commenter requests that the Agency amend the prohibition on including animal wastes to specifically allow commingled manure and bedding from equine farms and facilities to be included as source-separated organic material. Source-separate organic material as defined in the proposed rule excludes animal wastes, unless specifically permitted by the Commissioner under Part , item L. Composting of animal waste is regulated under feedlot rules 7 and other agricultural regulations. 8 Since composting of animal waste is allowed under different rules, the commingling of manure and bedding from equine farms and facilities is not necessary in SSOM and may jeopardize the quality of SSOM compost. Backyard Compost Sites Definition and Other Issues 11. Comment 5-D, 8-A, 12-B, 24-A, 25-A, 35-A, 37-A, 38-A, 39-A, 43-A, 45-A, 47-A, 49-A, 50- A, 51-A, 52-A, 53-A, 54-A, 55-A, 63-A, 64-B, 66-A, 68-A, 69-A, 71-A, 71-D, 75-A, 76-A, 77- D, 79-C, 82-A, 83-A, and Public Hearing Exhibit 87 Testimony of Brenda Wilcox ( , subp. 2) (repeal, notification, waste, and additional materials) Commenters disagree with folding previously regulated backyard compost sites into the proposed small compost site category. The reasons cited discuss new regulatory status for numerous backyard compost sites under the small compost site category that have never been regulated; increased need for staff resources; unenforceable Agency overreach; improper notification of rulemaking; lack of need to license and regulate backyard compost sites; and that the Agency lacks scientific information indicating risk on which to base the proposed changes. Various commenters suggest incorporating language to allow local government units to pass ordinances to accept additional materials. Commenters propose reinstatement of the backyard compost site, which was proposed for repeal. Several commenters suggested local ordinances would allow addressing local concerns as well as specific geographical and hydrological conditions inherent to their area. Lastly, some commenters believes the proposed change will discourage homeowners from building compost sites and increase the amount of garbage going into landfills. 7 Minn. R , Manure compost sites. 8 Minn. Stat , subd. 2, Disposition of carcasses. Page 12 of 44

14 In consideration of the comments received regarding the need for backyard compost sites and the determination that small compost sites, as proposed, are not likely to pose the same concerns as larger permitted solid waste management facilities, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has proposed changes to the proposed revisions affecting backyard compost sites and small compost sites. Changes relating to small compost sites are more fully discussed in the following section of the response to comments. The proposed changes affecting backyard compost sites and small compost sites re-establish a backyard composting site definition that will apply to composting taking place at a single family or household and modify the requirements that apply to small compost sites. Furthermore, the exemption detailed in Part , subp. 2, item A, will be restored for backyard compost sites. The proposed definition of backyard composts sites has been changed to exclude apartment buildings and single commercial offices. Composting is still encouraged at these multifamily, commercial or institutional facilities, but composting taking place in these circumstances will now fall into the small compost site category. This change is considered reasonable due the substantial volume of material that could be handled via a small compost site and the minimal regulatory burden the new rule places on small compost sites. Commenters suggested adding language that would allow local government units to add additional acceptable materials to be backyard composted, if approved by local ordinance. Local governmental units can only pass ordinances to further restrict the types of materials accepted at backyard compost sites, and cannot be less stringent than state standards. However, backyard composters can elect to operate under the small compost site designation without a permit or other approval from the Agency. To operate as a small site, individuals need only to ensure they adhere to the appropriate provisions of Parts , subp. 99a and , subp. 2, item L. Small compost sites are permitted to take a larger array of materials than backyard compost sites. Acceptable materials are listed under Part , subp. 99a, item A. The MPCA has also made revisions to the rule for small compost sites to allow local governmental units to expand the list of acceptable materials when appropriate. The provisions for small compost sites established under Part , subp. 2, item L, allow for local governmental units to add additional acceptable SSOM for small compost sites when a local regulation allowing the additional materials has been adopted. This provision was deliberately included for small compost sites, but not for backyard sites. Small compost sites have more stringent requirements than backyard sites. The existence of a local regulation will ensure that local officials have conscientiously made a decision to allow any additional acceptable materials, while preserving the environmental protections established under the rule for operating small compost sites. Page 13 of 44

15 Proposed change to the rule amendments as published: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. [For text of subp. 1, see M.R.] Subp. 2. Exclusions. A solid waste management facility permit is not required: A. For backyard compost sites and small compost sites as defined in part ; [For text of items B to I, see M.R.] [For text of subps. 3 to 4, see M.R.] DEFINITIONS. Subp. 7. Backyard compost site. "Backyard compost site" means a site used to compost food scraps, garden wastes, weeds, lawn cuttings, leaves, and prunings from a single family or household, apartment building, or a single commercial office, a member of which is the owner, occupant, or lessee of the property SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES GOVERNED. [For text of subp. 1, see M.R.] Subp. 2. Exceptions. Parts to do not apply to the following solid waste management facilities or persons, except as indicated: A. Small compost sites must only comply with parts , subpart 1, items A to E; ; and backyard compost sites; [For text of items B to I, see M.R.] J. temporary community cleanup event transfer facilities in compliance with part , subpart 2, item H, must only comply with parts , subpart 1; , subparts 1, 3, and 4; and , subpart 2; and K. limited collection transfer facilities in compliance with part , subpart 2, item I, must only comply with parts , subpart 1; ; , subparts 1, 3, and 4; and , subpart 2;. and L. small compost sites must only comply with parts , subpart 1, items A to E and , subparts 1 and 2, items A and B. A municipality may adopt a regulation that allows source-separated organic materials, as defined in part , subp. 105a, in addition to those materials defined in part , subp. 99a, after review by the commissioner of those additional materials and review of the provisions for control of potential impacts associated with those additional materials. REPEALER. Minnesota Rules, part , subpart 7, is repealed. Page 14 of 44

16 Small Compost Sites Definition and Other Issues 12. Comments 5-E, 3-A, 14-A, 14-B, 61-A, 65-D, 71-B, 71-C, 75-B, 76-B, 78-E, 82-B, and Public Hearing Testimony of Russ Henry ( , subp. 99a): (capacity, incidental materials and additional materials by ordinance) Because the impact of these rules is statewide, commenters believed that the proposed size restriction of 80 cubic yards in Part , subp. 99a, item C, for small compost sites should be increased. Commenters also suggested that local governments can restrict the size further through ordinances and local action is more appropriate because it takes into consideration needs that may exist outside of metropolitan areas. Additionally, commenters suggested the rule incorporat of the concept of incidental materials as discussed in the SONAR into rule language and expand incidental materials to include manure. A commenter also requested clarification of the phrase active compost stage defined in Part , subp. 20a. The changes to the proposed revisions affecting backyard compost sites and small compost sites re-establish a backyard composting site definition, which will apply to composting taking place at a single family or household and modify the requirements that apply to small compost sites. For further discussion of the changes affecting backyard compost sites, see the section of the response to comments for backyard compost sites. Furthermore, the exemption in Part , subp 2, item A, will be restored for backyard compost sites. The proposed definition of backyard composts sites has been changed to exclude apartment buildings and single commercial offices. Composting is still encouraged at these multifamily, commercial or institutional facilities. However, composting taking place in these circumstances will now fall into the small compost site category. This change is considered reasonable due to the substantial volume of material that could be handled through a small compost site and the minimal regulatory burden the new rule places on small compost sites. The revised draft of the rule further expands the exception for small compost sites by deleting the reference to Part and deleting the reference to Part , subpart 3. The only provisions applicable to small compost sites are Part , subpart 1, items A to E (General Solid Waste Management Facility Requirements unacceptable materials) and Part , subparts 1 and 2, items A and B (Location Standards). The need and reasonableness of Parts , subp. 1, items A to E, and , subs. 1 and 2, items A and B, are described on page 20 of the SONAR. The Agency also has updated the definition of small compost sites under Part , subp. 99a, item D, to indicate small compost sites must prevent groundwater contamination and prevent surface water contamination. These provisions are considered reasonable as described in the SONAR on page 17 under Part , subp. 99a, items C and D. Page 15 of 44

17 The Agency adjusted the allowed size of small compost facilities by increasing the capacity to 120 cubic yards, and extending the materials that count towards that total to include finished compost. This change was adopted in response to a number of comments and is consistent with regulations in other states. This change also will prevent any possible confusion that may have arisen from the previous language, which made a separate allowance for finished compost. Since the size limit applies to all materials on site, there is no need to make a judgment call to determine when compost is finished. Small compost site operators are not required to obtain permits or undertake training, and as such, allowing a facility that has more than 120 cubic yards of material would not be reasonable. Sites wanting to manage a larger quantity of material, fit more appropriately into the SSOM compost facility definition, which has design and operational requirements more suitable for managing large quantities of material. Local governments under this provision maintain the authority to reduce the allowable size of small compost sites and to establish other operating or siting requirements appropriate to local considerations. Commenters also suggested that the agency allow local governments the flexibility to allow materials beyond those outlined in Part , subp. 99a, item A, to be composted at small compost sites. The Agency has added the language below to allow local governments to make allowances for other types of organic material, such as brewery wastes. The provision below has been added to Part , subp. 2, Item L, to make this allowance for small compost sites. The Agency will review provisions of local regulations related to additional acceptable materials so staff expertise related to composting operations can be communicated to local governments during the development of local composting regulations. The new language also limits in scope the type of materials that could be added to small compost sites by referencing the definition of Source Separated Organic Material, defined in Part , subp. 105a. Some items within that definition, specifically those outlined in Part subp. 105a, item B, will require Commissioner approval should they be included at small sites. These provisions are reasonable to ensure local ordinances appropriately account for additional materials that may require more sophisticated management practices. In addition, by ensuring that local regulations are in place before any additional materials are added, this provision ensures that local authorities are better prepared to address impacts small sites may have on their communities. The Agency has specifically prohibited manure along with other items listed under Part Subp 99a, Item B, due to odor, vector or sanitary issues associated with management of the prohibited items. An explanation of the rational for excluding these items is included on page 17 of the SONAR. Page 16 of 44

18 Proposed change to the rule amendments as published: DEFINITIONS. Subp. 99a. Small compost site. Small compost site means a site that: A. is used to compost: (1) food scraps; (2) yard waste; (3) poultry litter generated on site only if the compost produced is used on site; (4) nonrecyclable paper; or (5) compostable materials meeting ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868, incorporated by reference under part ; B. does not accept fats, oils, grease, meat, dairy, animal manure, diapers, or sanitary products; C. does not exceed cubic yards on site at any one time, including collected raw materials and compost being processed. But excluding finished compost; and D. is where the materials under item A are managed to minimize odor, prevent groundwater contamination, prevent surface water contamination, and avoid the creation of nuisances and public health risks SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES GOVERNED. [For text of subp. 1, see M.R.] Subp. 2. Exceptions. Parts to do not apply to the following solid waste management facilities or persons, except as indicated: A. small compost sites must only comply with parts , subpart 1, items A to E; ; and backyard compost sites; [For text of items B to I, see M.R.] J. temporary community cleanup event transfer facilities in compliance with part , subpart 2, item H, must only comply with parts , subpart 1; , subparts 1, 3, and 4; and , subpart 2; and K. limited collection transfer facilities in compliance with part , subpart 2, item I, must only comply with parts , subpart 1; ; , subparts 1, 3, and 4; and , subpart 2;. and L. small compost sites must only comply with parts , subpart 1, items A to E and , subparts 1 and 2, items A and B. A municipality may adopt a regulation that allows source-separated organic materials, as defined in part , subp. 105a, in addition to those materials defined in part , subp. 99a, after review by the commissioner of those additional materials and review of the provisions for control of potential impacts associated with those additional materials. REPEALER. Minnesota Rules, part , subpart 7, is repealed. Page 17 of 44

19 Part COMPOST FACILITIES Subp. 8. Location requirements for a source-separated organic material compost facility. 13. Comments 5-G, 25-B, 32-A, 72-L, 76-C, 77-C, and 79-E ( , subp. 8, item C): (water table) Various commenters offered suggestions for alternative definitions of water table and suggested the use of a geologist or soil scientist for determining required distances. Commenters suggested that the MPCA include a definition for water table that is different from the definition used for other solid waste facilities. In addition, commenters believed the Agency presented insufficient scientific data to support the required 5 foot vertical separation to the water table. The definition for water table was established for all solid waste activities in Minn. R subp The definition is: Water table is the surface of the ground water at which the pressure is atmospheric. Generally, this is the top of the saturated zone. As discussed on page 22 of the SONAR, the Agency determined that for consistency it was more appropriate to use the already well-established definition of water table. As stated on page 29 of the SONAR: Interpretations contained within the soil survey for the site need to be verified by the use of soil borings, piezometers and/or test pits as certified by a soil scientist, engineer or geologist licensed by the state of Minnesota, with expertise in soils characterization as defined by education and experience. The most commonly accepted means for determining that a 5-foot separation distance to the water table is maintained are by using redoximorphic features in the soils, water elevations in piezometers once a month for twelve months, or by other methods as approved by the commissioner. A soil scientist, engineer or geologist licensed by the state of Minnesota with expertise in soils characterization as defined by education and experience should be able to verify that this condition is met. As discussed on page 22 of the SONAR: Five vertical feet of separation between SSOM and the water keeps the ground water and operations separated. It should be noted that five feet of separation to the water table is required for permit-by-rule demolition facilities (Part , Subpart 2) and industrial waste facilities (Part , Item B.) 14. Comment 67-C ( , subp. 8): (location, design standards and Carver County Project) The commenter expresses concern regarding the draft rule location and design standards, given that they are being proposed without consideration of the data and final report from the MPCA s research study with Carver County, which is planned for completion in summer Page 18 of 44

20 With regard to the Agency considering data from Carver County research, see General Comments A and B and the Agency s response on pages 4 through5 of this document. The rationale for the location requirements for SSOM compost facilities can be found on pages 21 through 23 of the SONAR. 15. Comment 29-B, 64-C, Public Hearing Exhibit 87 Testimony of Brenda Wilcox ( , subp. 8, item D): (setback) The commenters consider the requirement for a setback of 500 feet from residences to be extremely inadequate (noting, for example, the MPCA has stated in public meetings that bioaerosols from a compost site are above normal background levels at 800 feet ) and argues that setbacks should be site-specific, determined by facility type, location, local environmental factors, and the amount of waste to be processed. Page 23 of the SONAR explains the reasonableness of this requirement. The proposed rule provides that local units of government may adopt different setback requirements if local conditions or values support a different setback. The setback provision works in coordination with the site, construction and operations requirements of the proposed rule. Provided the facility is sited, constructed and operated in accordance with the proposed rules, MPCA believes the proposed 500 foot setback is sufficient to mitigate off-site impacts. 16. Comment 29-C ( , subp. 8, item D, subitem 2): (alternatives to setback) The commenter states that facilities should not be allowed to construct a structure or feature meant to replace the distance buffer because compost releases bio-aerosols, pathogens, and bacteria that are airborne: There is no substitute for having the vertical distance buffer and 500 feet is nowhere near sufficient. Natural features such as bluffs and trees can provide adequate separation to minimize nuisance conditions. Similarly, a constructed wall or berm may provide the necessary separation between the compost activity and neighboring residences. 17. Comment 29-E, 64-D, 64-E, Public Hearing Exhibit 96 Testimony of Brenda Wilcox ( ): (opt-out plan) The commenter states that an opt-out plan should be available for area residents who do not feel safe living next to a composting facility. Page 19 of 44

21 The exact intent of this comment is unknown. However, the MPCA suspects it refers to an action where SSOM facilities would be prohibited in certain areas. Local government zoning is the appropriate mechanism for not allowing certain types of land uses in certain area. 18. Public Hearing Exhibit 97 Testimony from Jan Christison: (zoning, rodents, and education) The commenter requests location specific standards in mixed use zoning to ensure single family homes are not effected by larger neighboring developments composting bins. The commenter also stated rodents are a problem and requests the rules require Rodent proof containment. Finally, the commenter requests that the Agency provide education to local units of government. The proposed rule changes will require small compost facilities, which is how this neighboring compost site would be regulated, operate in a manner that controls nuisance conditions including odor, litter, and vectors. The MPCA would have regulatory authority and could take enforcement action against any site that does not control nuisance conditions. In addition, as stated during the Hearing, education for all composters is a priority for the MPCA and working closely with local governments is a part of that priority. Part COMPOST FACILITIES Subp. 9. Design requirements for a source-separated organic material compost facility. 19. Comment 67-B ( , subp. 9, item B): (non-degradation standards and Carver County Project) The commenter asserts that the rule in its present form is inconsistent with non-degradation standards, based on the available data referenced in the MPCA s pilot study with Carver County, and that its implementation will likely result in groundwater contamination. See General Comment C on page 6 of this document regarding the Carver County studies. Non-degradation rules require the maintenance of water quality when that water quality exceeds water quality standards. 9 The rule is not inconsistent with non-degradation standards 10 9 Minn. R through Minn. R. chs and Page 20 of 44

22 since non-degradation standards will continue to apply in the same manner as they have in the past to all waters of the state, including groundwater. 20. Comment 1-E ( , subp. 9, Item B, subitem 6): (alternative to required surfaces) The commenter proposes alternative language to specify that tipping, mixing, active composting, curing, and storage areas for compost must be located on a surface capable of minimizing migration of materials or contact water downstream of the contact water collection and treatment system. The design and operation of a solid waste facility must be protective of all subsurface soils, groundwater and surface water at the facility, not just those down-gradient. The proposed rules are protective of soils, groundwater and surface water. 21. Comment 4-A, 4-C, 5-H 25-C, 32-A, 36-B, 48-A, 67-A, 72-G, 72-H, 72-I, 72-J, 77-A, 79-F, 80-F, and Public Hearing Exhibit 87 of Victoria Reinhardt, 102-A ( , subp. 9, item B, subitem 8): (5 required soils and soil types) Many commenters questioned the requirement for 5 feet of separation with a combination of listed soil types. Many sated the 5 feet was not protective enough while others asserted a smaller distance was sufficient and would be consistent with other regulations, such as for septic systems. Various commenters disagreed with the proposed language s elimination of loam, silt loam, and silt from the list of soil textures allowed in compliance with the required five-foot soil separation distance to the water table. One commenter noted that the most common soils in Minnesota are no longer acceptable under the currently proposed language, which will severely limit the number of acceptable sites for compost facilities. See General Comment C and the Agency s response on page 6 above in this document. The need for and reasonableness of this proposed rule section is established on pages 27 and 28 of the SONAR. Included is a discussion of the choice to remove three more highly permeable soils. Table 2: Soil Permeability Chart on page 28 of the SONAR, reflects a combination of information collected from multiple reference documents. These references are listed as Exhibit 15 of the March 24, 2014, Compost Rule public hearing record. The SONAR text describes three soil types as highly permeable. The intent was to describe these soils in contrast to other soils that are described. The intent was not to categorize the soils as highly permeable since there is no commonly accepted scale and limit at which a soil would be highly permeable. The SONAR language is MPCA staff s best judgment based on all reference material and professional knowledge. Technical staff expertise encompasses experience as soil scientists, professional engineers, and professional geologists. Page 21 of 44

23 With regard to the comments that SSOM separation distances should be the same as septic system requirements, comparison of SSOM contact water to sewage effluent is not valid. Data, including data from the Carver County projects, suggests that the two liquids are potentially significantly different and a direct comparison is inappropriate. 22. Public Hearing Exhibit 87-C Testimony from Victoria Reinhart ( , subp. 9, item B, subitem 9): (soil types discretion) The commenter has concerns that the rule does not allow enough commissioner discretion stating We were verbally led to believe that the Commissioner would have discretion related to soil types as specific sites are identified. Part , subp. 9, item B, subitem 9, unitc, does allow for alternative liner systems to be approved by the Commissioner if certain criteria are met. This could include a site that does not meet the soil requirement but has installed groundwater monitoring. 23. Comment 3-B ( , subp. 9, item B, subitem 9): (siting criteria) The commenter provides a theoretical example of an application of the proposed rule at a hypothetical site. The commenter states that a site with 4 feet of natural in-place clay loam above the water table could possibly get commissioner approval for the site by adding one foot of clay loam to meet the standard defined in Subpart 9, B(8). The commenter further states that if this is an incorrect application, this should be further clarified in the rule. The above example would not meet the siting criteria specified in proposed Part , subp. 9, item B, subitem 8. However, proposed Part , subpart 9, item B, subitem 9, does allow alternative designs. The commenter is correct in that the design could be proposed as an alternative design and would be evaluated. 24. Comment 101-D: (clarification on experience with impervious surfaces and soils) The commenter notes that the SONAR states, Based on the experience with compost an impervious surface is required if on-site soils do not provided adequate protection of ground water, and would like to know what specific experience the Agency is referring to in this statement. MPCA has decades of experience with MMSW composting and other solid waste sites, including closed landfills and demolition landfills, in the state. Groundwater monitoring at these sites was reviewed during the development of the proposed rules. Page 22 of 44

24 25. Comment 4-B ( , subp. 9, item B, subitem 8): (soil testing) The commenter states, the standard does not require any formalized method of soil testing and analysis. If MPCA continues to include those sections in the rule, at a minimum, SKB recommends that standardized methods for soil testing be required (such as ASTM D2487). Proposed Part , item K, requires a work plan for any proposed soil characterization that is submitted to the Agency for approval. Any proposed method must be detailed in this report and approved by MPCA staff prior to field activities. Proposed Part , subpart 9, item B, subitem 8, also requires the characterization be done by a Minnesota-licensed soil scientist, engineer, or geologist. Part COMPOST FACILITIES Subp. 10. Construction requirements for a source-separated organic material compost facility. 26. Comment 42-B, 81-B ( , subp. 10, item E): (seam testing) The commenter suggests alternative wording to allow a provision for different types of seam testing for extrusion and fusion welds. The wording or language contained in the proposed rule for the testing of different types of seams is the standard wording used in the lining material industry. The MPCA proposes the language in order to avoid any confusion with what is widely understood and accepted in the lining industry. Part COMPOST FACILITIES Subp. 11. Operation requirements for a source-separated organic material compost facility. 27. Comment 29-F ( ): (education) The commenter requests that the Agency require an operator/manager of a compost facility to have a degree in organic chemistry. Additionally, the commenter requests that the Agency require facilities to have educated personnel on site 24 hours a day to monitor the condition of the compost. Page 23 of 44

25 Proposed Part , subp 11, item A, requires submission and approval of an operation and maintenance manual meeting listed requirements which include personnel training requirements meeting the requirements of proposed Part , subp 13. The MPCA believes these requirements are sufficient to ensure operation by trained personnel and do not feel it is appropriate to establish particular academic background requirements for operators or managers, or require facilities to have personnel on site 24 hours a day. 28. Comment 3-C ( , subp. 11): (alternative testing) The commenter states that wood and brush chips are a common, low cost, bulking agent in the composting process. Finer parts of this bulking agent can still be present in mature compost even after final screening. Therefore, wood bulking agents add to the ash content following Ignition Loss test; skewing the test results toward immaturity. It would be helpful if the rule would allow an alternative to the ignition loss analysis as the keystone test for maturity. The Ignition Loss test is in current rules that apply to Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MMSW) composting facilities. The direction for the SSOM rule making effort was to incorporate SSOM appropriate rules without affecting the rules associated with MMSW and yard waste composting. The Ignition Loss test method cannot be modified as this would affect MMSW composting facilities. To determine maturity of finished compost, SSOM compost facilities will be required to use the Ignition Loss method as well as one additional method approved by the Commissioner. 29. Comment 28-A ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 4): (removal of rejects and residuals) In accordance with proposed Part , Definitions, the commenter supports the differentiation of rejects and residuals in reference to approved storage areas. The commenter offers alternative language to eliminate the term residuals from Part , subp. 11, item B, as well as the requirement that rejects be removed from the screening area after 10 days. Given the proposed rule operation and maintenance manual requirements for SSOM facilities, the MPCA does not believe it is necessary to define a set time for removal of rejects from the screening area. Page 24 of 44

26 30. Comment 1-C, 5-C, 5-I, 12-A, 48-B, 58-H, 65-B, 65-E, 77-B and 79-G ( , subp. 11, item B, subitems 4 and 6): (rejects, residuals and contact water) Various commenters believe that rejects and residuals pose little risk to human health and the environment. This belief is based on the fact that residuals have met the PFRP process and consist of woody materials that may be marketed as is or reincorporated into the composting process for further particle size reduction. A commenter argued that the rule unduly treats residuals as rejects and that it is inconsistent to allow curing compost to be off-pad but not allow residuals off-pad because those residuals have already gone through the composting process. One commenter objects to the inclusion of residual in the definition of contact water and believes that it would be an unnecessary hardship to require that residuals that have completed the PFRP process be managed in the same way as uncomposted SSOM and other material that has not completed the PFRP process. Another commenter suggested the Agency allow rejects to be stored off-pad in a nuisance-free manner for up to 30 days. One commenter asserts the proposed language will be an unnecessary and expensive change to the rule. Lastly, various commenters suggest that the Agency should not require water that has come into contact with rejects and residuals to be diverted to a facility s contact water collection and treatment system. Page 26 of the SONAR discusses the need for and reasonableness of a provision that requires water that is in contact with residuals to be managed as contact water, unless an exception is provided by the MPCA Commissioner. In consideration of the requests for more flexibility with residuals and contact water at compost sites, MPCA concludes that some flexibility is warranted and reasonable. The MPCA proposes the changes below and in Attachment 2. (Also included is a correction that replaces residuals with rejects to correct an oversight in drafting to clarify the MPCA s intent.) The new language provides a process by which facility operators can receive allowances to store residuals that require no further composting and are free of rejects off of the contact water management pad. Residuals that are contaminated with rejects should be managed the same as rejects. The term free of rejects was deliberately selected instead of setting an allowable percentage because the Agency expects facilities to make all efforts to minimize contamination. A specific quantitative level of contamination is difficult and potentially costly to enforce for the Agency and for the facility to demonstrate compliance with that quantitative level. The term free of rejects is not intended to indicate that the presence of an incidental reject would prevent a facility from applying for and receiving the exception to the contact water requirements. It is also worth noting that if a compost facility creates a mulch product that does not require further composting, such a product, with commissioner approval, would fall outside the definition of residuals since it does not require further composting. That mulch product would not be subject to the draft rule requirements for management of residuals. Page 25 of 44

27 Proposed change to the rule amendments as published: COMPOST FACILITIES , subp. 11, item B, subitem 4 (4) All rejects and residuals must be stored to prevent nuisances such as odors, vector intrusion, and aesthetic degradation. All rejects and residuals must be managed to prevent the generation of contact water. All contact water from residuals rejects and residuals storage areas must be diverted to a collection and treatment system. Upon demonstration that residuals are free of rejects and usable without further composting, the commissioner may approve an exception to contact water requirements for residuals. 31. Comment 70-B ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 9, unit a): (waste-analysis plan) The commenter believes that clarification of the requirement for a waste-analysis plan prior to acceptance at the facility is necessary to eliminate confusion regarding its interpretation. The organic material management plan required by Part , subp. 11, item B, subitem 9, must include a description of the waste types to be handled and a discussion of how the owner or operator will manage each material. The plan must layout the process for evaluating a potential new organic material to determine acceptability, including a procedure for determining the analyses necessary to accept and compost each type of material. The plan shall be updated whenever the management practices or acceptable organic materials change. 32. Comment 12-D ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10): (temperature monitoring) The commenter requests that the Agency modify the temperature-monitoring requirements from each working day to every other day. The commenter also asserts that monitoring temperature both before and after turning provides no useful information and adds considerable cost to the composting facility. The Process to Further Reduce Pathogens is detailed in Part , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10. It requires the windrow be maintained at 55 degrees Celsius for a set number of days. Daily temperature measures are necessary to ensure the temperatures are maintained and compliant with the rule. Page 26 of 44

28 33. Comment 1-F and 98-C ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10): (temperature monitoring clarification) The commenter states that the sentence Each time temperature is measured, it must be measured before turning the pile and after turning the pile is ambiguous and requests clarification regarding whether this sentence is intended to mean immediately before turning and after turning. The commenter posits that the Agency based the requirement to monitor temperatures before and after turning on an erroneous assumption, contrary to the actual Federal rule, that pre and post temperatures must be 55 degrees Celsius. The commenter asserts that normal operations entail several days of 55-degree temperatures followed by a turn and continued monitoring. Another commenter recommends the rule require temperature monitoring on three nonconsecutive days per week rather than every weekday; this change would reduce costs and allow staff resources to be allocated to other important operations such as product testing, water quality sampling, and odor monitoring. The facility owner or operator needs to be aware of the temperature to ensure the compost process is proceeding as designed. If temperatures were not recorded at least daily, the facility owner, operator, or the Agency would not be able to determine compliance with the performance standards for temperature. MPCA has reviewed the language and agrees that changes are necessary to clarify the Agency s intent. The requirement to measure temperature before and after turning does not need to be in addition to the daily temperature measurements. Daily temperature measurements can be coordinated with turning to minimize the number of times the temperature is measured. To clarify, the following changes will be made to this subpart. Proposed change to the rule amendments as published: COMPOST FACILITIES. Subp. 11, item B, subitem 10: (10) Compost must be produced by a process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP). The owner or operator must monitor and record the temperature and retention time for the material being composted each working day until PFRP is achieved and weekly thereafter. Each time a windrow is turned, the temperature is must be measured, it must be measured no more than 4 hours before turning the pile windrow and no more than 24 hours after turning the windrow pile. Acceptable methods of PFRP are described in units (a) to (c). Page 27 of 44

29 34. Comment 1-A, 5-J, 1-B, 12-E, 12-F, 28-B, 69-B, 71-E, 98-A, 98-F, and 98-G ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10, unit a): (porous materials, turning frequency, and flexibility due to weather conditions) Various commenters asked MPCA to modify (1) the proposed requirement of including 12 of porous materials at the base of the windrow; and (2) the proposed frequency of turning. Seasonal shortages, demand of materials by other industries, alternative materials, odor, microbial management, and compost site cost control issues were concerns. One commenter stated that site managers can maintain aerobic conditions within the windrow more effectively by using an oxygen meter to track oxygen levels within the windrow core and adjusting the ratio of materials accordingly. Commenters observed the proposed turning frequency would cool the pile at inappropriate times and make it difficult to meet the PFRP. They suggest various alternatives. Testimony was offered regarding the need for more flexibility with weather conditions. Another commenter disagrees with the requirement that a windrow composting site must turn every 3 to 5 days, and argues that these rules should adhere to the federal Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) requirements. The need for and reasonableness of turning windrow management requirements are described on pages 40 and 41 of the SONAR. The MPCA believes the proposed provisions related to windrow turning are consistent with the PFRP requirements. The process outlined in the proposed language allows a facility to turn less frequently if the operation and maintenance manual includes allowances granted by the Commissioner. However, a 3-5day timeframe is needed to ensure operators do not turn material too frequently, in which case, material may not be held in the high-temperature core of the windrow for the PRFP required 3 consecutive days. MPCA has determined that several changes are warranted and reasonable in response to the comments regarding the need for flexibility with the 12 inches of porous materials for a windrow required at SSOM compost sites, and the need for flexibility with turning requirements due to extreme weather conditions. A number of viable strategies beyond using 12 inches of porous material at the base of a windrow could be utilized to ensure aerobic conditions and appropriate porosity. Additional language is proposed to allow facility operators, through an operation and maintenance manual, more flexibility regarding when they turn the windrows. To gain this flexibility the operations and maintenance manual must identify defined weather conditions when it would be necessary to deviate from the typical 3-5 day turning schedule. For example, a compost operator could include provisions in its operation and maintenance manual that would allow turning to be delayed in the case of extreme cold or on days when wind speed or direction could carry odors to compost facility neighbors. The Agency has also added the phrase during which in the sentence that describes when site operators must adhere to the 3-5 day turning regimen. This language is intended to clarify that the 15-day time frame, and the turning requirements associated with it, start on the first day Page 28 of 44

30 that the windrow reaches 55 degrees Celsius. The turning requirement also no longer applies after conclusion of the 15 days. Proposed change to the rule amendments as published: , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10, unit a (a) The windrow method for reducing pathogens consists of an unconfined composting process involving periodic aeration and mixing. Construction of each windrow must incorporate include a minimum of 12 inches of porous materials at the base of the windrow that promotes aerobic conditions within the windrow. Blended sourceseparated organic materials may be placed on top of the porous material to a maximum height of Windrow height must not exceed 12 feet. Aerobic conditions must be maintained during the compost process. A temperature of 55 degrees Celsius must be maintained in the windrow for at least 15 days., The during which the windrow must be turned at least once every three to five days, unless otherwise approved by the commissioner in the operation and maintenance manual due to defined weather conditions. 35. Comment 98-E ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10, unit): (aeration) The commenter states that any aeration provided during turning is ephemeral and only lasts a few hours, so periodic mixing is a more accurate term than periodic aeration. The term periodic applies to both aeration and mixing. Periodic mixing of the material dramatically increases the amount of oxygen in the windrow immediately after turning. Turning the windrow also fluffs the material creating more space for air to flow through the windrow, thereby increasing the oxygen available. 36. Comment 12-G ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10, unit b): (alternative to time requirements) The commenter proposes alternative language to modify the time requirement for aerated static pile (ASP) composting to maintain temperatures above 55 o C (131 o F) from a period of seven days to a period of three days. The commenter states that ASP compost piles maintain these temperatures for periods longer than seven days, but mandating it removes operational flexibility. The Process for Further Reducing Pathogens (PFRP) requirements cited by the commenter is for the disposal of sewage sludge. The State of Minnesota established separate PFRP requirements in the adoption of the current solid waste rules. A discussion of the rationale for setting those requirements can be found in the previous SONAR dated February 23, Page 29 of 44

31 37. Comment 12-H ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10, unit c): (time periods and temperature for enclosed vessels) The commenter proposes alternative language regarding the proposed time periods and temperature levels for stabilization of material composted in an enclosed vessel. The commenter states that the SONAR published with this proposed rule justifies its approach by referring to the February 23, 1988, SONAR, which is no longer accessible and should be accessible. The 1988 SONAR is available from the MPCA in paper or electronic form upon request. 38. Comment 70-C and 101-A ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 11): (alternative test methods, mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)) The commenter requests a requirement for finished compost to be tested using the U.S. Composting Council (USCC) Seal of Testing Assurance program or another USCC-approved product quality assurance program. The commenter also states that the requirement to test finished compost for mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls should be tied to scientific data that would indicate the presence of these compounds in incoming feedstocks that would thus result in their presence in the finished compost. The finished compost testing required under the proposed rule Part , subp. 11, item B, subitem 11, is adequate for the intended purpose to determine the quality of the compost produced. Requiring other tests, such as the U.S. Composting Council (USCC) Seal of Testing Assurance program as recommended by the commenter in the rule, will add additional operating cost. In addition, some facilities are currently doing the test recommended on their own for marketing. Based on lessons learned from a composting facility in Minnesota that accepted polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) contaminated corn for composting without testing its feedstock and ended up with a finished compost with high level of PCBs, the MPCA is requiring facilities to test for PCB s to prevent reoccurrence of the problem. The mercury test requirement is in the existing MMSW composting rule, and the requirement for mercury testing has been carried over into the proposed SSOM rule. For relief of the PCB and mercury testing requirement, there is a provision in the proposed rule which will allow the owner or operator to request for removal of mercury and PCB sampling and testing requirements based on five years of sampling with nondetect results. 39. Comment 98-B ( , subp. B, item 11): (working day definition) The commenter states that the phrase working day is overly ambiguous: The wood drying portion of our Organics Recycling Facility is open seven days per week, 24 hours per day. Does that mean that we must monitor seven days per week? Page 30 of 44

32 The term working day applies to all days the compost facility has staff on site. It is assumed to be Monday through Friday. 40. Comment 1-D and 98-H ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 12): (odor) Two commenters express concerns about the odor management plan requirement. One commenter suggests alternative language. One commenter agrees that the compost manager must act to minimize odors and states that the rule does an excellent job at identifying the steps in the process likely to generate significant odors but notes that the rule does not include even the most basic odor standard. The commenter argues that the threshold should not be persistent complaints because, for example, this does not account for the possibility of persistent complainers creating a misleading impression that the facility has an odor problem (e.g., half of the 250 complaints the commenter has received in the past 20 months came from only three residents). In 1992, MPCA proposed repealing odor rules located in Chapter Stakeholder feedback to replace the rule resulted in the development of revisions to also incorporate a statewide odor rule based on citizen complaints. A draft rule was proposed March 11, While the repeal of the odor standards of Chapter 7011 was approved, the statewide odor rule was not approved, because no need was demonstrated. Minnesota currently does not have odor standards for any facility type. All solid waste facilities are required to operate in a manner that minimizes and eliminates nuisance conditions beyond its property line. 41. Comment 12-I ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 13, unit b): (training) The commenter requests the list of accredited training courses and educational activities be expanded to include approved training providers who can offer on-site training courses at solid waste composting facilities. The training requirements established under Part , subp. 11, item B, subitem 13, do not preclude on-site training courses. On-site training courses may be acceptable as an accredited course or approved educational activity, provided it covers the topics defined in the rule and that personnel on site meet the requirements for contact hours. 42. Comment 1-G ( , subp. 11, item B, subitem 13): (training) The commenter states that the rule should provide skills tracts for both facility managers and facility operators. The commenter recommends that the 40-hour course conducted by the U.S. Composting Council be set as the standard for managers, combined with four contact hours per Page 31 of 44

33 year; that a manager be required to be on duty or able to reach the site within one hour at all times that a compost facility is open for business; and that operators receive eight hours of compost operator training with a two-hour refresher course per year. Page 42 of the SONAR establishes the need and reasonableness of the proposed requirement. The proposed rules ensure all sites have properly trained operators and employees. Not all facilities will have multiple tiers of management or employment. 43. Comment 34-A, 42-A, 81-A ( ): (PFC testing) The commenter notes that the rules do not include any updates to require perfluorochemical (PFC) testing for compost even though the MPCA has recently mandated such testing in landfill leachate and groundwater monitoring. The commenter states that PFCs are common in packaging such as milk cartons and popcorn bags, which often end up in source-separated organic materials, and asserts that PFC testing requirements should be consistent. During an MPCA survey of landfill leachate, PFCs were found to be present in the leachate, some well over the state s Health Risk Limits (HRLs). As a result, landfills that use land treatment of leachate systems are required to sample for PFCs (PFOS, PFOA, PFBA, and PFBS) in its leachate at least twice per year. During the 2014 Carver County project, PFCs were detected in 4 out of 5 sheet flow samples taken down gradient from yard waste and SSOM compost windrows during sampling done in Fall In addition, the following PFCs were observed in water samples collected in 2013 from all 3 of the lined test pads: PFC HRL (ng/l) Concentration (ng/l) PFOS 300 < detection limit (Perfluorooctane sulfonate) PFOA , 34.0 (Perfluorooctanoic acid) PFBA 7,000 not quantified (Perfluorobutanoic acid) PFBS (Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid) 7, , 38.4, 73.8, 77.2, 326, 120, 243, 254, 226, 159 The PFC congener that had the highest concentration for the compost liner study is PFBS, at 254 ng/l. This concentration is greater than an order of magnitude under the HRL, and if it was landfill leachate it would be well below the threshold for further sampling at spray site monitoring wells. Page 32 of 44

34 C. Other comments The following comments do not relate to specific proposed rule parts, but address general issues related to the proposed rule. 44. Comments 5-K, 71-F, 72-M, 75-C, 76-D: (Additional Tiers) The commenter believes that the MPCA should consider a tiered approach to regulating composting facilities. The commenter references an article and mentions New York (considering raising SSOM volumes from 1,000 to 5,000 yd 3 ) and Wisconsin (allows 5,000 yd 3 under a partial exemption) as examples of where standards have been established or are currently being considered for revision. The commenter believes that the MPCA should follow Wisconsin s lead and allow for intermediate sized SSOM facilities to accept up to 5,000 yards of SSOM at any one time with performance standards. A regulation and permitting system should be developed that increases regulatory controls as the types or tonnages of organic materials increase. The commenter suggests a five-tier system. During MPCA s initial drafting of the SSOM rule, the Agency looked at other states rules, including Wisconsin and New York, and determined the suggested tiered system approach will not work for the State of Minnesota, as it currently has the yard waste and mixed municipal solid waste composting rule. The reason for the SSOM rule is to come up with a rule in between the two existing ones. What the Agency ended up with is a Small Composting Site and SSOM classification, which the Agency believes is as good as the recommended tiered approach to regulating composting facilities. 45. Comment 14-C: (education) The commenter suggests that the Agency integrate education in schools and requests to see a more whole picture in addition to composting. The Agency has worked with partners to incorporate composting education and practices into schools whenever possible. The Agency has a recycling toolkit that includes resource promoting classroom education and implementation of composting available at The Agency has also awarded grants to local governments and school districts in support of composting. In 2010, the MPCA, in partnership with Hennepin County, conducted a school waste composition study, available at The Agency has also assigned Green Corps members (AmeriCorps Volunteers) to work with schools on waste prevention and recycling, including organics recycling programs. These efforts have all fundamentally been based on promoting Page 33 of 44

35 environmentally preferable behavior where composting is considered more desirable than disposal but less preferable than waste prevention. 46. Comment 20-B, 99-A, 99-D: (improving monitoring and accountability) Commenters believe that the MPCA and owners of composting sites need to improve monitoring and accountability by providing neighbors with sufficient time to ask questions and voice opinions after hearing of a proposed site. Concerns with rural versus city processes, property values, lack of time to organize and respond, and a perception that decisions have already been made regarding a facility when notice is provided were voiced. A commenter suggests that requiring an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on request of neighbors would alleviate future problems. MPCA Response to Comments 20-B, 99-A, and 99-D: Prior to issuance of all solid waste permits, the preliminary determination to issue or deny a permit is placed on public notice for 30 days. This notice is distributed according to Part , subp. 5. All interested parties are asked to submit written comments during that period. If requested, a public informational meeting will be held to discuss the draft permit. 47. Comment 59-A: (objection, initiate rulemaking after documenting problems) The commenter opposes new MPCA composting rules and suggests that the Agency wait a few years, measure and document any problems in greater detail, and draft new regulatory proposals only if the problems increase. It is unclear if the commenter is referring to backyard composting or larger commercial composting facilities. The MPCA has been regulating the composting of solid waste since 1988, and the current rulemaking process for composting of SSOM began over four years ago. 48. Comment 64-G: (restrict sites and operator experience) The commenter asserts that the Agency should restrict the number of sites each operator can run. The commenter states that the MPCA said the Good Thunder site would have an operator with over 10 years of experience, but the experienced operator was only there for start-up and then left the site in the hands of people that don t know what they are doing. Employee training and operator requirements provide that properly qualified personnel are on site when necessary. Page 42 of SONAR discusses the training requirements. The regulations allow facilities that meet the requirements regardless of whether or not the operator is involved in other sites. Page 34 of 44

36 49. Comments 33-A, 46-A, and 80-A (SONAR inadequacy) The commenter suggests that the MPCA has failed to provide adequate justification for the proposed SSOM requirements because it has failed to provide scientific facts for the basis of its proposal and this has resulted in unnecessarily onerous, arbitrary and capricious requirements. The Agency has provided justification for all proposed rule changes in the SONAR. 50. Comments 46-B and 80-B: (SSOM equivalency to yard waste) The commenter suggests it is more appropriate for the MPCA to regulate SSOM facilities in the same manner as yard waste compost facilities because it has not provided any scientific information to demonstrate the increased risk of SSOM to human health and the environment. Yard waste compost sites have little oversight and few state regulations. After review of several studies, papers, and other state regulations, the MPCA does not agree that SSOM can be regulated similar to yard waste. Justification for each requirement is detailed in the SONAR. 51. Comment 72-F: (SSOM comparison to yard waste) The commenter asserts that the statement, SSOM presents a greater risk to health and the environment than composting of yard waste and less risk than composting of MMSW, on page 24 of the SONAR is unproven: When Carver County staff requested that the MPCA substantiate this claim, the MPCA responded by saying It is assumed that because yard waste is a subset of SSOM, SSOM presents a greater risk. This response points out a lack of understanding on the part of the MPCA of the facts surrounding organics composting. The MPCA funded research projects do not support this statement. The MPCA considered all available data, including reports from Carver County and other permitted facilities. MPCA staff does not agree that the research projects at Carver County provide adequate data to determine SSOM should be regulated at the same level as yard waste, and believes the draft rule as proposed provides the necessary regulation to protect human health and the environment. 52. Comments 46-D and 80-D: (Sanitary Landfill requirements) The commenter states that it appears the MPCA copied and pasted Sanitary Landfill requirements for the SSOM rule, and takes issue with this because it is inappropriate to the relevant technologies for SSOM facilities. Page 35 of 44

37 The MPCA understands there are difference between landfilling technology and composting technology, and sees the value in having different regulations for each. However, there are some general requirements such as annual reporting, emergency procedures and construction certification that apply equally to all solid waste management facilities. The proposed SSOM rule writing process started when the composting industry requested changes from the existing MMSW composting rule, which served as the starting platform for the proposed SSOM rule. 53. Comment 79-A and Public Hearing Exhibit 87-A Testimony from Victoria Reinhart: (consistency with state/local solid waste management plans, and financial barriers) The commenter notes that the materials that will be delivered to source-separated organics composting sites (i.e., food waste, paper, and yard waste) are now also defined legally as recyclable materials: Whether this material is called source-separated organics or sourceseparated compostable materials, this material is clearly not mixed municipal solid waste. Composting sites that manage source-separated organics should not be regulated the same as landfills. The material that is managed at these composting sites and the way the material is managed are significantly different than materials and operations found at landfills. The commenter also asserts that the Agency needs to place these rules in the context of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan for : Streamlining the permitting process and lowering the financial barriers for developing source-separated organics composting sites must be addressed by the MPCA to support the metro counties in meeting the organics recovery goals in the Policy Plan. In addition, the composter would like to see the MPCA support local efforts to increase organics recycling by reallocating the Solid Waste Management Tax for its original intent, offering curbside organics composting in all cities in the county. MPCA Response All solid waste facilities are regulated by the MPCA and Minn. Rules 7001 and This includes MMSW landfills, demolition debris landfills, industrial landfills, recycling facilities, transfer stations, solid waste compost sites, and yard waste compost sites. The design and operational requirements vary based on the types of waste managed and the potential risk to human health and the environment. The requirements for SSOM compost facilities are not the same as the requirements for landfills. The MPCA is attempting to streamline the permitting process and lower financial barriers for the development of SSOM facilities by creating the new SSOM category in the rule. Currently, SSOM facilities are required to be permitted under the more stringent and costly MMSW permitting process. The draft rule takes into account the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan ( ) by Managing waste in a manner that will protect the environment and public health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and conserve energy and resources. Some noteworthy regulatory relief provisions that apply to SSOM facilities as compared to MMSW Compost Facilities include: Page 36 of 44

38 Pad requirements are adjusted to expand capacity at sites and lower capital investments needed to establish operate a facility: A pad is only required for tipping area, mixing area, rejects, residuals and active composting areas; No pad is required for curing or finished compost storage areas this allows substantially more activity taking place at SSOM facilities to take place on surfaces that can be developed at a lower cost; With appropriate soil types, a hard-packed, all-weather surface can be used instead of concrete, asphalt or geomembrane liners; and Alternative designs may be proposed and approved if equivalent. Greater flexibility when applicants can demonstrate new technologies or operational practices is adequately protective of human health and the environment. Examples of these provisions include: Allowances for: alternate siting distances, alternate liner systems, alternate site characterization process and expanded types of acceptable materials. Establishment of small compost sites. The collection and use of State Solid Waste Management tax dollars are based on Minnesota statutes. The MPCA does not have the authority to reallocate those funds to specific uses without legislative approval. 54. Comment 99-B and 99-C: (training and lack of communication regarding complaint) The commenter notes that many problems arise from a lack of trained and experienced staff on-site, and the closest neighbors seem to be the monitors for compliance of the rules. The commenter states that people calling in complaints to Lyra Township are often instructed to call 911 or the sheriff; If the problem is inspected and/or a correction made, there is no information related back to the people. The commenter asserts that gardeners already know the proper procedures for composting: Again this requires taking responsibility for our actions, controlling the size of our compost site (something we can handle and control) as well as inspections for very large compost sites. The SSOM rule contains more training and operator requirement than the existing MMSW composting rules. Employee training and operator requirements provide that properly qualified personnel are on site when necessary. Page 42 of the SONAR discusses the training requirements. In addition, MPCA permitting and compliance staff are committed to ensuring all solid waste sites operate in accordance with Minnesota statutes, rules, and permit conditions. Compliance staff follows up on all complaints and will take action if substantiated. If there are persistent complaints, permit conditions may be modified accordingly. Page 37 of 44

39 55. Comments 46-C and 80-C: (failure to identify and consider a reasonable number of alternatives) The commenter rejects the proposed rules because the MPCA did not identify and consider a reasonable number of alternatives, and from those alternatives select the least costly, most cost effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. Minnesota s Administrative Procedures Act (Minn. Stat ) requires consideration of the regulatory and economic effects of proposed rules to the extent the agency, through reasonable effort, can ascertain this information. In response to that mandate, the MPCA provided in its SONAR a reasonable assessment of expected regulatory effects and costs associated with the proposed rules (SONAR pp ). Minnesota Stat also requires a determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule. As mentioned in the SONAR, a primary goal of the proposed rules is to streamline the regulatory process. Examples of this regulatory streamlining include the creation of the small compost site category, the extended permit process, and site design requirements customized to SSOM composting facilities. Actual costs and economic effects of the proposed rules are variable, given the size and location of the facility. The MPCA provided a reasonable estimate of the expected costs and economic effect of the proposed amendments for a range of site conditions. A full accounting of costs and benefits is not anticipated, nor required, to fulfill the requirements of Minn. Stat The Agency is required to determine and identify if there are less costly or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the rule. However, the Agency is not required to propose the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. Disagreements about the economic analysis do not affect the fundamental reasonableness of the proposed rules. The Agency undertook reasonable effort to ascertain the probable costs of complying with the proposed rule for regulated parties, the agency, local governments, and others affected by the rule. The SONAR describes the data used and the results of the reasonable effort undertaken by the Agency. It is not possible, nor is it required, to analyze every possible scenario. The cost analysis and alternatives analysis are reasonable and meet the requirements of Minn. Stat Comment 20-A, Comment 29-A, 64-A, Public Hearing Exhibit 87 Testimony of Brenda Wilcox ( ): (environmental studies) The commenters request that the MPCA require all applicants for building a compost facility to complete environmental studies (e.g. Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Environmental Impact Statement) for new compost sites to assess that the proposed site will not harm the environment as well as to provide reassurance to neighbors regarding safety precautions. Page 38 of 44

40 Minnesota Statutes ch. 116D establishes a process and requirements for environmental review of the potential impact of certain proposed activities on human health and the environment. The process includes environmental assessment worksheets (EAW) and environmental impact statements (EIS). Proposed activities that trigger environmental review processes are defined in Minn. Stat. 116D.04, subd. 2a. Minnesota Rules ch provides implementation rules for environmental review, including listing of projects that require a mandatory or discretionary EAW (Minn. R ) or EIS (Minn. R ). The MPCA is not proposing amendments to rules governing environmental review. Such amendments would be outside the scope of this rulemaking. 57. Comment 29-G, Public Hearing Exhibit 96 Testimony of Brenda Wilcox ( ): (insurance) The commenter states that the rules need to require all site owners and operators to carry insurance to cover all environmental and health liabilities near the sites. In aggregate, the proposed limitations on materials accepted; the location requirements including setbacks; site design, construction, and operation requirements; and management of contact water and stormwater; are intended to minimize off-site human health and environmental risks. In addition, local governments may adopt more restrictive setback and other requirements in response to residents. The MPCA is not proposing rules that require site owners and operators to carry insurance to cover environmental and health liabilities. 58. Public Hearing Exhibit 87-B Testimony from Victoria Reinhart: (guidance) The commenter states the MCPA is ignoring the guidance of over 800 private and municipal compost producers, academic institutions and public agencies who are members of the US Composting Council which published a Model Compost Rule Template, dated April 4, The MPCA considered a great deal of information to develop the rule, including studies identified in Hearing Exhibit 15, information submitted by stakeholders, as well as regulations developed in other states. The Model Compost Rule Template published by the USCC was primarily based on the first draft of the SSOM compost rule published by the MPCA. Changes were made to the draft rule based on additional information collected by the Agency and comments and information submitted by stakeholders. Page 39 of 44

41 59. Public Hearing Exhibit 89-B Testimony from Sarah Braman: (biased and incomplete data posting) The commenter states Despite objection, the MCPA posted biased and incomplete data, from the compost study to their public website. The majority of the data and information submitted to the MPCA is public information and is shared regularly with interested parties. The Agency had several requests for the data collected from the compost study at Carver County. In order to provide context to the data, a short document was written to summarize the steps taken during the project. The draft summary document can be found in Attachment 3 of this Response to Public Comment. The summary does not go into great detail, nor does it formulate conclusions or opinions. The document is in draft form and clearly states it is not intended to address all details of the project. A large amount of the data collected during the 2012 and 2013 project is included in the Appendices of the draft document. The data tables provide a summary of the data collected and does not represent every data point collected. Rows and columns that had no data points, such as rows of analysts that were not detected at any time during the project and columns where insufficient quantities of water were collected to sample, were removed. All data collected and submitted to the Agency is public information and was provided to interested parties upon request. Please note that not all data collected by Carver County has been submitted to the Agency. This draft summary document was shared with Carver County staff and project team members on January 16, 2014, asking for input. Their comments were received on February 11, 2014, and incorporated as appropriate prior to the draft summary document being published on the MPCA s website on March 12, To ensure the document was not misleading, qualifications where incorporated, including Carver County s objection to publishing the document. The document also clearly stated that a final report is expected at a later date. The draft document was intended to be a brief summary of the project design, construction and implementation. 60. Comment 101-A: ( PCB contamination) The commenter notes that the SONAR states that a facility in Minnesota recently accepted an organic material that was contaminated with high levels of PCB, which was not discovered until the final product was tested. The commenter would like to know the name of the facility, the type of material contaminated with PCB, and when the contamination was discovered. Page 40 of 44

42 The name of the facility referenced in the SONAR is Swift County Compost/Recycling Facility. The material that contained the PCB contamination was corn from an ethanol processing facility. The contamination was found in Comment 101-B: (other state requirements) The commenter requests clarification on several points in the SONAR regarding depth-togroundwater requirements for source-separated organic material: (1) specific soil-type requirements for each of the eight states discussed in the SONAR; (2) the reasoning behind Michigan s decision to reduce the required separation distance to four feet based on professional judgment ; and (3) the definition of water table for each of the eight states discussed in the SONAR. The commenter requests clarification on several points in the SONAR regarding pad requirements for source-separated organic material: (1) details of the facilities in Wisconsin that the SONAR cited as a model for non-exempt and exempt compost facilities; (2) details of Iowa s permeability requirements for an all-weather surface of compacted soils or relatively impermeable material, as cited in the SONAR; and (3) whether Indiana s requirement for a one-foot-thick pad of soils with a permeability of 1X10-5 includes this one foot of permeable soils in their five-foot separation distance. The information requested is available at each state s specific website. 62. Comment 100: (lack of data) The commenter asserts that more data from larger experiments regarding perfluorochemicals (PFCs) are required. The commenter suggests that the Agency conduct additional studies because the Carver County study was not sufficient. The information provided is similar to information previously reviewed by MPCA staff. 63. Comment 95: (copies of data practices request documents) The commenter submitted a binder with copies of materials that the MPCA made available in response to a Data Practices Act (DPA) request. The organization of the Hearing Exhibit 95 submittal can lead to confusion about which study various documents refer. Some documents relate to a project concept that was considered for a proposal to the Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR). The project Page 41 of 44

43 concept was drafted by the MPCA, debated internally, but never submitted as a proposal to the LCCMR. Other documents relate to one or more of the three Carver County studies funded by MPCA. The intermingling of the documents could lead to the impression that internal discussion related to the LCCMR project concept was part of the discussion about one or more of the Carver County studies. MPCA staff have not inventoried the exhibit to separate documents into groupings for each study. If requested, staff could provide such an inventory. The ongoing Carver County project continues to move forward with an anticipated date of completion coming no later than June 30, The Carver County research is not now, nor has it ever been on hold. Agency staff developed a separate preliminary draft proposal for further research on a new project that was considered through the agency s process to submit a funding request to the LCCMR. Applications for the current round of LCCMR funding were due on March 28, 2014, and would have funded projects beginning on July 1, The Agency elected not to submit a composting research project through the LCCMR this year. The draft proposal was included in the information released from the DPA request, but the LCCMR project that is on hold could not have begun until July 1, Furthermore, simply submitting a proposal was never a guarantee that the proposal would have received funding through the highly competitive process. The Agency considers many projects for possible LCCMR funding proposals, but typically will only submit two or three projects that are among the Agency s highest priorities across all agency program areas. The quantity of documents produced for the DPA indicates that Agency staff met frequently to discuss rule development and the research at Carver County. As previously stated, the robust nature of discussion is necessary in rule development. The intensive discussions focused on balancing goals and considering all available information and studies. The results are the best collective judgment of the MPCA embodied in a rule that contains appropriate, reasonable requirements and controls for protecting human health and the environment in composting source separated organic material. Page 42 of 44

44 III. Corrections to the SONAR SONAR Page # SONAR text Correction Page 27 Page 27 The text stated: An example of a soil surface that minimizes infiltration would be 12 inches thick and have a 100% by weight passing through a 1 sieve and a minimum of 15% by weight passing through #200 sieve 1. The footer also used the same language. The phrase highly permeable is used to describe three soils. The calculation contained an error. The text should replace 15% with 30% in both referenced locations. These three soils should be described as more highly permeable rather than highly permeable as there is no commonly accepted scale and limit at which a soil would be highly permeable. IV. Attachments 1. Index of Pre-Hearing and Post-Hearing Comment Letters, Non-MPCA Public Hearing Exhibits and Testimony 2. Proposed Changes to the Rule Amendments, as Published in the Minnesota State Register on January 6, Source Separated Compost Study Preliminary Summary and Data, March 2014 Page 43 of 44

45 V. Conclusion After diligent consideration of comments made on the proposed rule, MPCA continues to assert that, as required by Minn. Stat , 14.14, subd. 2, and 14.15, subd. 4, and Minn. Rules , the Agency has shown the rule as proposed with the additional changes in Attachment 2 is needed and is reasonable as demonstrated by and affirmatively shown by facts presented by the Agency on the hearing record. Page 44 of 44

46 Attachment 1. Index of Pre-Hearing and Post-Hearing Comment Letters, Non-MPCA Public Hearing Exhibits and Testimony.

47 Pre- Name Hearing Letter 1 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community 2 Joanie Davis No specific comment, just a request for a hearing. 3 Dodge County Environmental Services 4 SKB Environmental 5 MN Composting Council Comment # in submittal: Response # in preliminary draft response 1 : 5-A 2 : 5-B 3 : 5-C 4 : 5-D 5 : 5-E 6 : 5-F 7 : 5-G 8 : 5-H 9 : 5-I 10 : 5-J 11 : 5-K 6* Mackenthum s Fine Foods 7* Water Billboards 8 Maria Brosofske-Wires and Kathryn LaBine 9* Sarah and Bradley Linden 10* Sender initiated voluntary recall 2/28/14 11* Greg Nelson 12 Coker Composting and Consulting 13* Jennifer Zbinden 14 Curtis Speck 15* Resource Recycling Systems 16* City of Mayer 17* Cary Oshins 18* We Care Organics 19* Linden Hills Power and Light 20 Sandra Speck 21* Maria Karis 22* Pope Douglas Solid Waste Management 23* Becker County Environmental Services 24 City of Burnsville 25 City of Chanhassen 26* Carver County Environmental Services Bill Fouks 27* Mark Isenberg 28 Full Circle Organics 29 Brenda M. Wilcox 30* Michael Reed 31 Bob Longmore 32 Dale Denn 33* MN Product Stewardship Council 34 Morrison County 35 Elizabeth Lundquist

48 Pre- Name Hearing Letter 36 Brita and Phil Sailer 37 Dave Hawley 38 Patrick Watson 39 Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg., Inc. 40 Nancy Martinetto 41 Dianne Hunter 42 Lyon County 43 Dan Hottinger 44* Leidos 45 Rhonda McCall 46 Daniel Halbach This letter also reiterates Comments 5-A, 5-D, 5-H, and 5-K. 47 Richard Vukonich 48 US Composting Council 49 Marge Stagsetter 50 Mary Siedschlag 51 Kevin Cavanugh 52 Kyle Maher 53 Susan Oven 54 Jan Christison 55 George Martin 56 Doug Root 57* Tim Bastian 58* Sarah Braman 59 Lynette and Roberta Malles 60 Meghan Manhatton 61 Lynn Schoenstedt 62 Betty Jo Maher 63 Alyce Talarico Graves 64 Victor Wilcox 65 Western Lake Superior Sanitary District 66 Jean Wulterkens 67 MN Chapter National Waste & Recycling Association 68 Gerald M Horgan 69 Gardening Matters 70 Specialized Environmental Technologies, Inc. Excluded 1 request for hearing since one individual has already submitted a request under a separate letter. This letter also reiterates Comments 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 5-G, 5-H, and 5-I. 71 City of Minneapolis 72 Carver County 73 Mike Roe 74* K-POST, LLC 75* Eureka Recycling 76* Winona County 77 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board 78* MN Mulch and Soil 79 Hennepin County

49 Pre- Name Hearing Letter 80 Thomas Halbach Excluded request for hearing since individual has already submitted a request under a separate letter. This letter also reiterates Comments 5-A, 5-D, 5-H, and 5-K. 81 Crow Wing County 82 St. Louis Park 83 Kenneth Wilson Public Hearing Testimony of Doug Johnson 87 Public Hearing Testimony of Victoria Reinhardt 88 Public Hearing Testimony of Marcus Zbinden Public Hearing Testimony of Sarah Braman Public Hearing Testimony of Ginny Black Public Hearing Testimony of Jim Aiken 95 Public Hearing Submittal of Dan Heitzman 96 Public Hearing Testimony of Brenda Wilcox 97 Public Hearing Testimony of Jan Christison Public Hearing Testimony of Russ Henry Public Hearing Testimony of Trudy Richter Public Hearing Testimony of Ali Durgunoglu Public Hearing Testimony of John Jaimez Public Hearing Testimony of Trudy Richter Post- Hearing Letter 98 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community 99 Sandra Speck 100 Feng Xiao 101 Marcus Zbinden 102 University of Minnesota *These letters are similar to Letter 5. See Letter 5 responses. These letters contain comments on the backyard compost site.

50 Attachment 2. Proposed Rule Revisions

51 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. [For text of subp. 1, see M.R.] Subp. 2. Exclusions. A solid waste management facility permit is not required: A. For backyard compost sites and small compost sites as defined in part ; [For text of items B to I, see M.R.] [For text of subps. 3 to 4, see M.R.] DEFINITIONS. Subp. 7. Backyard compost site. "Backyard compost site" means a site used to compost food scraps, garden wastes, weeds, lawn cuttings, leaves, and prunings from a single family or household, apartment building, or a single commercial office, a member of which is the owner, occupant, or lessee of the property DEFINITIONS. Subp. 20a. Contact water. Contact water means water that has come into contact with sourceseparated organic material in the tipping area, source-separated organic material in the mixing area, rejects, residuals, or active compost. For purposes of this subpart, compost is active until it has reached PFRP as described in part , subpart 11, item B, subitem (10), and the Solvita maturity index is greater than or equal to five with ammonia greater than or equal to four. An owner or operator may use an alternative test method as provided by part , subpart 9, item B, subitems (3) and (9) DEFINITIONS. Subp. 99a. Small compost site. Small compost site means a site that: A. is used to compost: (1) food scraps; (2) yard waste; (3) poultry litter generated on site only if the compost produced is used on site; (4) nonrecyclable paper; or (5) compostable materials meeting ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868, incorporated by reference under part ; B. does not accept fats, oils, grease, meat, dairy, animal manure, diapers, or sanitary products; C. does not exceed cubic yards on site at any one time, including collected raw materials and compost being processed. But excluding finished compost; and D. is where the materials under item A are managed to minimize odor, prevent groundwater contamination, prevent surface water contamination, and avoid the creation of nuisances and public health risks DEFINITIONS. Subp. 105a. Source-separated organic material. A. Unless specifically permitted by the commissioner under part , source-separated organic material does not include: (1) animal wastes, such as manure or carcasses;

52 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES GOVERNED. [For text of subp. 1, see M.R.] Subp. 2. Exceptions. Parts to do not apply to the following solid waste management facilities or persons, except as indicated: A. Small compost sites must only comply with parts , subpart 1, items A to E; ; and backyard compost sites; [For text of items B to I, see M.R.] J. temporary community cleanup event transfer facilities in compliance with part , subpart 2, item H, must only comply with parts , subpart 1; , subparts 1, 3, and 4; and , subpart 2; and K. limited collection transfer facilities in compliance with part , subpart 2, item I, must only comply with parts , subpart 1; ; , subparts 1, 3, and 4; and , subpart 2;. and L. small compost sites must only comply with parts , subpart 1, items A to E and , subparts 1 and 2, items A and B. A municipality may adopt a regulation that allows sourceseparated organic materials, as defined in part , subp. 105a, in addition to those materials defined in part , subp. 99a, after review by the commissioner of those additional materials and review of the provisions for control of potential impacts associated with those additional materials. REPEALER. Minnesota Rules, part , subpart 7, is repealed COMPOST FACILITIES , subp. 11, item B, subitem 4 (4) All rejects and residuals must be stored to prevent nuisances such as odors, vector intrusion, and aesthetic degradation. All rejects and residuals must be managed to prevent the generation of contact water. All contact water from residuals rejects and residuals storage areas must be diverted to a collection and treatment system. Upon demonstration that residuals are free of rejects and usable without further composting, the commissioner may approve an exception to contact water requirements for residuals COMPOST FACILITIES. Subp. 11, item B, subitem 10: (10) Compost must be produced by a process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP). The owner or operator must monitor and record the temperature and retention time for the material being composted each working day until PFRP is achieved and weekly thereafter. Each time a windrow is turned, the temperature is must be measured, it must be measured no more than 4 hours before turning the pile windrow and no more than 24 hours after turning the windrow pile. Acceptable methods of PFRP are described in units (a) to (c) , subp. 11, item B, subitem 10, unit a (a) The windrow method for reducing pathogens consists of an unconfined composting process involving periodic aeration and mixing. Construction of each windrow must incorporate include a minimum of 12 inches of porous materials at the base of the windrow that promotes aerobic conditions within the windrow. Blended source-separated organic materials may be placed on top of the porous material to a maximum height of Windrow height must not exceed 12 feet. Aerobic conditions must be maintained during the compost process. A temperature of 55 degrees Celsius must be maintained in the windrow for at least 15 days., The during which the windrow must be turned at least once every three to five days, unless otherwise approved by the commissioner in the operation and maintenance manual due to defined weather conditions.

53 Attachment 3. Source Separated Compost Study Preliminary Summary and Data, March 2014

54 Source Separated Compost Study Preliminary Summary and Data The information below is intended only as a brief summary of the demonstration project design, construction, and implementation. The project team is currently working on the final report including more descriptions, details, images and data collected. The project had significant limitations that are not fully detailed in this summary. The draft final report is anticipated to be complete by March of 2014 with final report the summer of The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and our grant partners believe further study is needed to address fundamental questions raised through this research. Grant agreement project details Project Title: Scientific Evaluation of Contact & Storm Water from the Organics Demonstration Site Focus area identified in Request for Proposal (RFP): Source-Separated Compost (Category 1: Communities) - The evolution of compost technology and the co-composting of materials (i.e., food, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper) have resulted in currently unanswered questions such as: o Is there a need for a pad in the curing area or will a drivable surface over certain soil types and depth to water table be enough to protect the water table below a facility? o What is the chemical composition of the contact water from the various areas (i.e. the tipping/mixing, active, curing area) of the compost facility? o Is there infiltration into the soils in the areas that have a pad vs. those that do not have a pad? Is there a difference in the infiltration rates? Preferred project proposal direction to grantees: Proposals that address the following two identified research needs: 1) the chemical composition of the contact water and stormwater generated at compost facilities during different composting stages (i.e. tipping/mixing, active, curing), and 2) whether there is any infiltration of contact water to the soils below the mixing, active process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP) and curing areas (post PFRP) of a compost facility and, at a minimum include a literature review related to the two research topics and a proposed method of study that will evaluate the chemical and biological components of stormwater runoff from compost facilities. At a minimum, testing should include: nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium (NPK) panel; measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution (ph); metals panels; possible organic chemicals perfluorocarbons (PFCs), bisphenol A (BPA), other compounds such as phenols and pesticides; pathogens; biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD). Goal statement: A more comprehensive understanding of environmental impacts of composting operations will allow for expansion of the industry within the state. The data will provide those considering implementing and/or regulating with real data on which to base decisions about environmental impacts. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency TTY or March 2014 w-sw3-43 Available in alternative formats

55 Project summary A. Fall 2012 Carver County Environmental Services (Carver County) applied to continue and expand research at the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum demonstration site in order to scientifically address questions related to compost technology and co-composted materials. The MPCA and Carver County entered into a Grant Agreement, effective September 20, Additional research was previously conducted by Carver County through an Environmental Assistance grant; that research is summarized in the November 2012 report Continuation & Expansion of the Commercial & Residential Co-collected Organics Composting Project. Working with Specialized Environmental Technologies (SET), University of Minnesota Extension Professor, Tom Halbach, and the MPCA, Carver County performed rain simulations and collected water samples in October A rain simulator acquired from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture was used to apply water to an existing compost pile and a number of different composting feed stocks. During the previous grant, falling head suction tube soil water samplers were installed three feet below the surface to collect samples of water that infiltrated through the compacted gravel pad and on site Lester-Kilkenny clay loam and loam soils. This phase of the project also included sampling of surface water generated by the rain simulation that took place over the compost pile. An image of the project configuration can be found in Appendix A. The data from water samples collected can also be found in Appendix A. Specific parameters such as starting moisture content, pile dimensions, and the amount of water applied will be included in the final report. B. Summer 2013 Throughout the winter of , Carver County worked with MPCA staff to revise the project design. Due to volume measurement and chemical analysis limitations, the falling head suction tube soil water samplers were replaced with a liner system to collect the contact water. In June of 2013, three test pads were constructed using compacted MnDOT Class I aggregate on a sand drainage layer and 40-mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. The design drawings and images of the pad construction can be found in Appendix B. On July 8, 2013, commercial food waste, co-collected residential food and yard waste, grass clippings, leaves, and wood chips were mixed together at the site to provide a recipe that could be used by co-composting operations. Three separate batches of feed stocks from the same sources were mixed together in a Supreme Rotomix VTX-745 double-bladed mixer using the same recipe. A frontend loader with a three-cubic yard bucket delivered bucket loads of ingredients to the mixer, and then delivered the mixed recipe to each of the three test cells. The dimensions of the compost piles were approximately 7 X 13 X 4 high. The average moisture content of the three mixed pile was 56%. The average recipe and an image of the three constructed piles can be found in Appendix B. Rain simulations were performed on July 10th on pile #3, July 11th on pile #2 and July 12th on pile #1 using the Minnesota Department of Agriculture s two-orifice Purdue design rainfall simulator. Over the 3.5 hour rain simulation period, approximately 200 gallons of water were non-uniformly applied to each compost pile. Rain gauges were placed in the piles to measure the amount of water falling on the pile in several locations. Figure B9 shows the amounts of water applied and the location of each rain gauge during the first rain simulation (pile #3). Rain simulations were performed again on each pile on August 14th 15th and 16th. The process was repeated again on September 17th, 18th, and 19th. These dates were chosen based on different stages of the composting process. Prior to the August simulation, the compost had a Solvita maturity index of between 4 and 5. Prior to the September round the Solvita maturity index was 6. Page 2 of 13 March 2014 w-sw3-43

56 The test pads were designed with the intention to collect contact water running off the pile onto the surface of the pad and to collect water that had run through the compost pile and infiltrated through the aggregate pad. Surface water was only collected on one test cell during the first rain simulation. None of the other rain simulations performed on the test cells produced surface water run-off. Conversely all of the rain simulations from Fall of 2012 produced surface water run-off. All rain simulations on the test cells produced contact water that was collected from the subsurface collection sumps. Several attempts were undertaken to evaluate the characteristics of the aggregate pad used in the test cell. Each method had substantial limitations; however the test cells were substantially more porous than the operational pad. Following each rain simulation, the contact water collected in the subsurface sump area was measured. Samples of contact water were collected 24 hours after each rain simulation. According to the volumes measured and recorded from the sump, approximately 50% of the water applied infiltrated through the compost pile into the subsurface. These samples were analyzed for heavy metals, PFC, pesticides, pathogens and nutrients. The results of the analysis are summarized in Appendix C. Total volumes of water that were collected will be reported in the final report. Samples of the mixed compost solids were collected in July and August for analysis. In October 2013, samples of feed stocks similar to those used for the test compost piles used in the rain simulation were also collected and analyzed. The samples were analyzed for synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP) and the test method for the examination of composting and compost (TMECC). Samples collected for the TMECC analysis were gathered from a different compost facility. The results of all solids analysis can be found in Appendix D. Qualification The draft final report is anticipated to be complete by March of 2014 with final report the summer of This summary is not intended to address all details of the project and as such does not include a full assessment of the project s limitations or a comprehensive analysis interpreting the results. The above is intended only as a brief summary of the demonstration project design, construction, and implementation plan. While efforts were made to closely mirror actual composting operations, project considerations necessitated that aspects of this project s composting effort were not representative of real world composting operations. The Grantee is currently working on the final report including more descriptions, details, images and data collected. The project had significant limitations that are not fully detailed in this summary. Note, the Grantee has stated its objection to the release of this document for a number of reasons including the fact that they have not yet finished and submitted their final analysis; QA/QC is incomplete and there are various contextual concerns. The MPCA shares some of these concerns; however, given the significant interest from outside parties and time sensitive nature of this research, the Agency feels compelled to release this preliminary summary. The full project team believes further study is warranted. Page 3 of 13 March 2014 w-sw3-43

57 Appendix A: Fall 2012 Figure A1: October 2012 Project Table A1: October 2012 PFC Data WATER Sheet Flow Grab Sample Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Water Applied 10/23/ /8/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /23/ /10/ /24/2012 Date Collected 10/23/ /8/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /23/ /10/ /24/2012 Parameter units PFBA ng/l <8.2 <8.2 <8.2 < PFPeA ng/l 25 < < ,000 PFHxA ng/l <7.8 <7.8 <7.8 < PFHpA ng/l <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 PFOA ng/l <13 <13 <13 < PFNA ng/l <0.7 <0.7 <0.7 < < PFDA ng/l < ,000 1, PFUnA ng/l <17 <17 <17 < <17 <17 PFDoA ng/l <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 1, PFBS ng/l <13 < <13 55 PFHxS ng/l <11 <11 <11 < <11 32 PFOS ng/l <6.9 <6.9 <6.9 <6.9 <6.9 < <6.9 PFOSA ng/l <5.7 <5.7 <5.7 <5.7 <5.7 <5.7 <5.7 <5.7 Page 4 of 13 March 2014 w-sw3-43

58 Table A2: October 2012 Data Soil Water Grab Sheet Sheet WATER Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sampler Sample Flow Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Water Applied 10/23/ /24/ /8/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /23/ /10/ /24/ /24/2014 Date Collected 10/23/ /24/ /8/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /23/ /10/ /24/ /24/2014 Parameter units Arsenic ug/l <10 <10 <10 < <10 1,120 <10 Barium ug/l Boron ug/l 501 <150 < ,740 1,790 2, Cadmium ug/l <2 <2 <2 < <4 <2 Chromium ug/l Copper ug/l 484 < Lead ug/l 18.3 <3 7.4 <3 <3 <3 67 <3 Molybdenum ug/l <15 <10 <15 < <15 Nickel ug/l 39 <20 <20 < Selenium ug/l 23.7 < Silver ug/l <10 <10 <10 <10 not reported Zinc ug/l Mercury ug/l <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.6 <0.2 <0.6 <0.2 Nitrate as N mg/l <0.1 <0.1 < <1 <5 <1 Nitrite mg/l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < <5 <1 Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/l <0.1 < <1 <2 <1 Phosphorous mg/l 0.68 < Potassium mg/l 12,600 2,860 10, ,000 2,310,000 1,400,000 2,880, ,000 TKN mg/l <1 < , ph at 25C Total Coliform MPN/100/mL TNTC TNTC TNTC* <1 unable to unable to Unsafe Absent Total Coliform CFU/100mL CFU/100ml run run 200, ,000 E-Coli MPN/100/mL TDS mg/l ,120 14,200 13,000 25,400 2,020 TSS mg/l 554 < Carbonaceous BOD mg/l <60 8, BOD-Hach Rev 1.1 mg/l <2 11 3,110 4,600 COD mg/l 138 <50 < ,430 13,700 45,300 35,600 2,530 Page 5 of 13 March 2014 w-sw3-43

59 SVOC ug/l ALL ND <1,010 <10.4 <10.4 <10.4 <51 <1,010 <1,020 <102 2-Methylphenol(o-Cresol) ug/l <1,010 <51 <1,010 <1,020 <102 Dibenzofuran ug/l 2-Nitrophenol ug/l 3-Nitroaniline ug/l 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ug/l WATER Sheet Flow Soil Water Grab Sheet Sheet Sheet Flow Sampler Sample Flow Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Sheet Flow Water Applied 10/23/ /24/ /8/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /23/ /10/ /24/ /24/2014 Date Collected 10/23/ /24/ /8/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /23/ /10/ /24/ /24/2014 Parameter units Pesticides ug/l ALL ND ALL ND ALL ND ALL ND ALL ND ALL ND ALL ND Phenols ug/l 159 2, 4-D ug/l ALL ND ALL ND ALL ND ALL ND ALL ND Phenolics, Total ug/l <50 <50 <50 <50 1,910 <1250 4,090 2,600 Bisphenol A (BPA) ng/l Page 6 of 13 March 2014 w-sw3-43

60 Appendix B: Summer 2013 Figure B1: Pad Construction Plans Page 7 of 13 March 2014 w-sw3-43

61 Figure B2: Wrapping 40-mil HDPE Liner into Drainage Pipe that is inserted into Sump Barrel Figure B3: Compacting Class I Aggregate in Two (2) Six-inch Lifts Figure B4: Checking Lateral Slopes of Test Cells Figure B5: Completed Test Cell with Surface Water Collection Tray, Apron, and Liner Collection Sump Riser Page 8 of 13 March 2014 w-sw3-43

62 Figure B6: Compost Recipes Figure B7: Artificial Rainfall Simulator and Compost Pile. Note Rain Gauges in the Pile. Type of ingredient Average Number of 3 CY Buckets/Recipe Approximate Weight (lbs) Average Percent of Recipe Based on Weight Commercial food waste % Grass % Co-collected food and grass % Leaves % Wood chips % Figure B8: Three Constructed Compost Piles (pile #1 closest) Figure B9: Distribution of water (in inches) applied on Cell 1 during the July 12, 2013 rain simulation. Square rain gauge placement was measured and recorded. Round rain gauges were randomly placed and location on figure is an estimate. Page 9 of 13 March 2014 w-sw3-43