The proposed Amendment 9 to the VSWMR would prohibit locating a composting facility (except for those only composting vegetative waste and yard waste) less than 1,200 feet from any airport's air operations area.

The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in its Advisory Circular, "Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports" (#150/5200-33, 1997) notes the following setbacks for wildlife attractants (Sec. 1-3):

a. Airports serving piston-powered aircraft. A distance of 5,000 feet is recommended.

b. Airports serving turbine-powered aircraft. A distance of 10,000 feet is

recommended.

c. Approach or Departure airspace. A distance of 5 statute miles is recommended, if the

wildlife attractant may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.

Sec. 3-4 of that same document states: "composting operations should not be located closer than the greater of the following distances: 1,200 feet from any aircraft movement area, loading ramp, or aircraft parking space; or the distance called for by airport design requirements."

The FAA notes that yard waste is "generally not considered a wildlife attractant", but I recommend you modify the proposed language at 9VAC20-81-320 to require Category I-IV composting facilities and composting facilities handling only vegetative and yard waste (and not other Category 1 feedstocks) not be located closer to airports than the recommended FAA Siting Criteria in Sec. 1-3 as noted above. 

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9.  The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9.  The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9.  The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland's on-farm composting exemptions.  The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste.  As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket locally and organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health.  Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem.  I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting.

new addition:

"9VAC20-81-95D.  The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created."

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process office waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  "On-farm" sites may no be higher than 9 feet and all other pileas are limited to a height of 12 feet.  When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock, receiving, and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste).  The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads.  For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

Thank you!!

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

Curious as to the agency’s and board’s authority to regulate and/or prohibit any homeowner from doing anything with his own waste on his own land. Section 10.1-1400 of the Code of Virginia specifically spells out solid waste the agency and board can regulate. While community activities are to be regulated, private citizens and their activities on their own land with their own waste are not included. Local ordinances would apply via different applications of Code sections, but where is this authority granted to either the agency or the board by the Genera Assembly?  Just because you think it might be a good idea, isn’t sufficient. Please cite the statutory authority for regulating household activities by homeowners on their own land. Thank you. 

On behalf of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.”

 I am requesting the addition of the following comment toAmendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation. “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am requesting the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9. The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally & organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation. “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

I am writing on behalf of the Maryland-DC Compost Council, co-signed by the Virginia Composting Council, to request the addition of the following comment to Amendment 9.  The majority of this language was directly pulled from the State of Maryland’s on-farm composting exemptions. The purpose of this comment will be to increase community resilience in Virginia and help achieve the recently established 2022 Executive Order 17, #3 Stopping Food Waste. As prices for nutrient amendments sky-rocket, locally and organically-sourced nutrients are essential for our farming communities and local soil health. Promoting decentralized on-farm food scrap composting will help bridge the gap between reducing waste and keeping valuable nutrient-rich material in our ecosystem. I recommend adding the following comment to allow farmers to start small-size food scrap composting with minimal cost as a trial step prior to considering an increase to permitting. 

new addition: 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

Signed, 

Brenda Platt, MD-DC Composting Council

Ryan Duckett, Virginia Composting Council

Ms. Rohrer:

Golder Associates USA Inc. (Golder) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments on the draft Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (Amendment 9) that have been released for public comment on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website.  Golder understands that the public comment period extends through May 16, 2022. 

To assist with review of our comments, we have provided the proposed regulatory section citation and text in italics followed by Golder’s comment and basis for the comment.  

9VAC20-81-10 Definitions

"Accumulated speculatively" means to accumulate any material before being used, reused, or reclaimed or in anticipation of potential use, reuse, or reclamation. Materials are not being accumulated speculatively when they can be used, reused, or reclaimed, have a feasible means of use, reuse, or reclamation available and 75% of the materials accumulated are being removed from the facility annually.

Comment - In the case of Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) materials, it may be difficult to meet the 75% of accumulated material need to be removed from the facility annual.  Golder suggests either a specific carveout addressing CCR materials or a text addition where “…materials can continue to be stored in existing ponds, buildings, or approved solid waste facilities such as landfills, ponds, lagoons, or compliant storage areas until removed from the facility for use, reuse, or reclamation”.

"Landfill mining" means the process of excavating solid waste from an existing landfill but does not include excavation of waste to facilitate installation of landfill gas, leachate management, or other utility systems provided waste excavated is managed and cover installed in accordance with 9VAC20-81-140 or 9VAC20-81-160, as applicable.

Comment - In the case of excavating overfilled wastes, Golder suggests adding “…to facilitate correction of overfills, installation of landfill gas, leachate…”

9VAC20-81-98. Appropriate containers.

9VAC20-81-98.B.4 – Leak-proof; including sides, seams, and bottoms, and durable enough to withstand anticipated usage without rusting, cracking, or deforming in a manner that would make it a fire health or safety hazard or provide harborage for vectors;

Comment – The term “Leak-proof” could be interpreted as an absolute (i.e., waterproof) without further defining the term.  Also, as a practical matter, most existing roll-off boxes, front end loader boxes, or other temporary disposal containers may not be able to meet this leak-proof standard and this absolute standard may not be appropriate for every type of waste. Golder suggests using the term “Leak-resistant” instead, since the term “resistant” is commonly used as something that is very good but may not be an absolute.

9VAC20-81-120. Siting requirements

9VAC20-81-120.D.1.a - 500 feet from any residence, school, daycare center, hospital, nursing home, or recreational park area in existence at the time of application;

Comment – Golder opposes this new restriction to the use of the available permitted facility boundary area.  This new restriction could affect existing public facilities where it could result in a reduction of potential airspace (i.e., planned revenue source) or areas needed for leachate storage.  Golder suggests this increased restriction be limited to “new facilities” where it can be planned for a reduction in the permitted facility boundary area.

9VAC20-81-120.D.1.c - 100 feet from the facility boundary;

Comment – Golder opposes this new restriction to the use of the available permitted facility boundary area.  This new restriction could affect existing public facilities where it could result in a reduction of potential airspace (i.e., planned revenue source) or areas needed for leachate storage.  Golder suggests this increased restriction be limited to “new facilities” where it can be planned for a reduction in the permitted facility boundary area.

9VAC20-81-140. Operation requirements

9VAC20-81-140.B.14 - Internal roads in the landfill shall be maintained to be passable in all weather by ordinary vehicles. All operation areas and units shall be accessible, including the access roads or paths to monitoring locations.

Comment – Golder opposes adding language that requires all weather access for roads or paths to monitoring locations.  This could be impracticable for certain monitoring locations.

9VAC20-81-140.B.21 - 21. - Topographic survey. Each landfill with a permitted daily disposal limit of more than 300 tons per day shall perform a topographic survey of the active portion of the landfill on an annual basis (at least once every 12 months). Each landfill with a permitted daily disposal limit of 300 tons per day or less shall perform a topographic survey of the active portion of the landfill on a biennial basis (at least once every 24 months).

Comment – Golder suggests revising the proposed language to be based on the “permitted average daily disposal limit” to avoid confusion with facilities that may have a permitted “maximum” daily disposal limit but operate under a permitted “average” daily disposal limit.

9VAC20-81-140.E.1.b - Lift heights shall be sized according to the volume of waste received daily and the nature of the industrial waste. A lift height is not required for materials such as fly ash that are not compactable.

Comment – Golder suggests deleting the words “such as fly ash” in the last sentence as shown above since fly ash material can be and should be compacted when disposed or stored in a permitted landfill.

9VAC20-81-140.E.2 - Incinerator and air pollution control residues containing no free liquids shall be incorporated into the working face and covered at such intervals as necessary to minimize them from becoming airborne. Dust control measures such as surface wetting, crusting agents, or other strategies shall be utilized in a manner and frequency suitable to control dust from other wastes that could become airborne, such as fly ash and bottom ash from burning of fossil fuels.

Comment – Golder suggests deleting the words “, such as fly ash and bottom ash from burning of fossil fuels“ in the last sentence. It seems inappropriate to single out any one type of waste in this context.

9VAC20-81-250. Groundwater monitoring program

9VAC20-81-250.B.2.a.(4) - Data from the background wells during each subsequent sampling event shall be added to the previously calculated background data for the recalculation of site background once every four years, unless approval for a longer timeframe is obtained from the department, to maintain the most accurate representation of background groundwater quality for statistical purposes required under subdivision A 4 h of this section.

Comment – Golder suggests that this section be revised to indicate that background concentrations should be established with data collected within a rolling window of time to be established based on the site-specific groundwater travel time from the upgradient side of the landfill to the downgradient side of the landfill.  This will help prevent false-positive statistically significant detections based on temporal variations in natural groundwater quality.

9VAC20-81-250.E.2(g) - A table listing the constituents identified during the year's sampling events, their concentrations at the respective monitoring well, and if applicable, the related groundwater protection standard in effect during the sampling event;

Comment – Golder recommends that the term “identified” in this section be changed to “detected” to clarify the intent of the requirement.

9VAC20-81-450. Permit Application Procedures

9VAC20-81-450.C.1 - 1.         The applicant shall complete, sign, and submit three copies one paper copy and one electronic copy of the Part A application containing required information and attachments as specified in 9VAC20-81-460 to the department and shall submit to the department the applicable permit fee under the provisions of 9VAC20-90. The application shall include the following certification signed by the consultant for the applicant "I certify under penalty of law that, based on my knowledge of [what the permit is covering], this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision, and consistent with a professional standard of care, in accordance with a system designed to provide ensure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is in my professional opinion and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."  As used herein, the word “certification” or “certify” shall mean an expression of the Engineer’s professional opinion to the best of his or her information, knowledge, and belief, and does not constitute a warranty or guarantee by the consultant."

Comment – Golder suggests that this section be revised as indicated per the suggested strikeout/inserted text.

9VAC20-81-450.D.1 - 1.         The applicant, after receiving Part A approval, may submit to the department a Part B application to include the required documentation for the specific solid waste management facility as provided for in 9VAC20-81-470 or 9VAC20-81-480. The Part B application and supporting documentation shall be submitted in three copies as one paper copy and one electronic copy and must include the applicable permit fee under the provisions of 9VAC20-90 and the financial assurance documentation as required by 9VAC20-70. The application shall include the following certification signed by the applicant "I certify under penalty of law that, based on my knowledge of [what the permit is covering], this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision, and consistent with a professional standard of care, in accordance with a system designed to provide ensure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is in my professional opinion and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."  As used herein, the word “certification” or “certify” shall mean an expression of the Engineer’s professional opinion to the best of his or her information, knowledge, and belief, and does not constitute a warranty or guarantee by the consultant."

Comment – Golder suggests that this section be revised as indicated per the suggested strikeout/inserted text

Closing

Golder appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments.  If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,

Golder Associates USA Inc.

DEFINITIONS

1. Correct the Compost Definition: Compost" means a stabilized organic product produced by a controlled aerobic decomposition process in such a manner that the product can be handled, stored, or applied to the land without adversely affecting public health or the environment.

Replace with the American Association of Plant and Food Control Officials definition adopted in 2018, reference 75th edition, AAPFCO Official Publication (2022):

Compost is the product manufactured through the controlled aerobic, biological decomposition of biodegradable materials. The product has undergone mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures, which significantly reduces the viability of pathogens and weed seeds, and stabilizes the carbon such that it is beneficial to plant growth. Compost is typically used as a soil amendment, but may also contribute plant nutrients.

2. Add to definitions:

Certified Compostable Products: Any product specifically manufactured to break down in a compost system at the end of its useful life. Examples include containers, films, or foodservice ware such as bowls, plates, cups, cutlery, and bio-plastic liner bags. Products are composed of materials such as vegetable matter, paper, cardboard, and plastics and are certified as conforming to ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868 standards. A third-party certification body should be required, as approved by the state. These products should be labeled in accordance with the state labeling guidelines.

9VAC20-81-410 Permits-by-rule and other special permits

new addition (Derived from Maryland regulations): 

“9VAC20-81-95D. The following activities are conditionally exempt from this chapter provided no open dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created:”

#. On-farm composting in an area no more than 5,000 square feet using covered windrowing, in-vessel systems, and/or aerated static pile (ASP) technology, when used to process offsite waste organic Category I, Category II, or Category III feedstocks in containers designed to prohibit vector attraction and prevent nuisance odor generation.  “On-farm” sites would be defined as farming operations as the primary land use on the property. Feedstock piles may not be higher than 9 feet and all other piles are limited to a height of 12 feet. When determining the area used in support of composting, include areas used for feedstock receiving and preparation (such as mixing, shredding, water addition), active composting, curing, and storage (including compost, equipment, and waste). The areas do not need to be contiguous and spaces not used for any of the activities listed above may be omitted, including empty fields and roads. For an area greater than 5,000 square feet, approval from the department will be required prior to composting.

9VAC20-81-310 Applicability

(4) Compostable or biodegradable food containers and utensils.

Please strike the words or biodegradable and replace with 

Certified Compostable Products as defined in this regulation.

9VAC20-81-340 Operation requirements

Recommend this addition to (B)1:

1. The facility shall operate under the direct supervision of a waste management facility operator licensed by the Board for Waste Management Facility Operators and trained and certified by the US Composting Council’s Certified Compost Operation’s Manager program (https://certificationsuscc.org/Certification/The-Basics)

Recommend replacement in this section of (C ) 2 with the text below.

2. Facilities for the composting of that compost Category II, III, or IV feedstocks, including those that mix these categories with Category I feedstocks, shall be provided with are subject to the following requirements in addition to the requirements of subdivision 1 of this subsection:

a. Noncompostable or other undesirable solid waste shall be segregated from the material to be composted. Solid waste that is not composted, salvaged, reused, or sold must be disposed at a permitted solid waste management facility authorized to accept the waste.

b. a. Products will continue to be considered as solid wastes until the testing indicates that they attain finished compost standards. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity and shall be conducted in a manner consistent with SW-846, as amended, and other applicable standards. The minimum number of samples that shall be collected and analyzed is for the testing required under subdivisions 2 b, 2 c, and 2 d of this subsection are shown in the following table below. Samples to be analyzed for metals shall be composited prior to the analysis.

c. b. All finished products will be tested for compost stability using one of the methods listed below in subdivisions 2 b (1) through 2 b (5) of this subsection:

(1) Temperature decline to near ambient conditions when not the result of improper management of the composting process. Composting records shall indicate schedules for turning, monitoring of moisture within the required range, and mix of composting feedstocks.

(2) Reheat potential using the Dewar Compost Self-Heating Flask. The results must indicate a stable product. Temperature rise above ambient must not exceed 10°C for stable compost. Very stable compost will not exceed 20°C above ambient.

(3) Specific oxygen uptake. To be classified as stable the product must have a specific oxygen uptake rate of less than 0.1 milligrams per gram of dry solids per hour.

(4) SolvitaTM Compost Maturity Test. To be classified as stable the product must exhibit color equal or greater than six.

(5) Carbon dioxide evolution. To be classified as stable the product must not evolve more than 1,000 milligrams of carbon dioxide per liter per day.

d. c. In addition to testing required of this subsection, finished products produced from any Category Categories III and IV materials will be tested for the presence of the following organisms using the methods indicated below: (1) Parasites. The density of viable helminth ova in the finished compost shall be less than one per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) at the time the finished compost is prepared for sale or give away in a container for application to the land. Viable helminth ova reduction shall be demonstrated by testing the finished compost once per quarter for a period of one year. After the viable helminth ova reduction has been demonstrated for the composting process, additional helminth ova testing will not be required provided the composting operating parameters and incoming waste stream are consistent with the values or ranges of values documented during the initial helminth ova reduction demonstration. If the composting parameters or incoming waste stream change a new viable helminth ova reduction demonstration is required, and (2) Bacteria bacteria pathogens. Either the density of fecal coliform in the finished compost shall be less than 1000 Most Probable Number (MPN) per gram of total solids (dry weight basis), or the density of Salmonella sp. bacteria in the finished compost shall be less than three MPN per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) at the time the finished compost is prepared for sale or to give away in a container for application to the land. (3) Other test methods, or facility operating standards may be used in lieu of the above parasite and pathogen testing requirements as approved by the department.

e. Metals. d. In addition to the testing requirements contained in this subsection, all finished products produced from Category IV materials shall be analyzed for the metals shown below in the following table. The concentration of contaminants shall not exceed the following levels:

We suggest section C (2)  be replaced with this testing from the USCC’s Model Rule Template:

 Tier Two and Three facilities shall meet the following test standards and requirements:

1. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of product testing shall be representative of the composting activity and shall be conducted in a manner consistent with TMECC or other applicable standards pre-approved by [state regulatory agency]. 

2. The minimum number of samples that shall be collected and analyzed is shown below. Samples to be analyzed shall be composted prior to the analysis. Compost samples must be collected from ready-to-sell finished compost using TMECC compost sampling methods. 

Compost Quantity1   Frequency

1 – 6200 tons/year Must test every three months
6201 – 17500 tons/year Must test every two months
17501 tons/year and above Must test every month

 1Either the amount of finished compost applied to the land or prepared for sale or giveaway for application to the land (on an “as is” or “wet tons” (wet weight) basis)

1. All compost shall be tested for stability using one of the methods listed in TMECC 5.08, Respirometry.  

1. The stability results must be reported

2. All compost shall be tested for the presence of pathogens using the methods in TMECC 7.00, Pathogens. 

1. Either the density of fecal coliform in the finished compost shall be less than 1,000 Most Probable Number (MPN) per gram of total solids (dry weight basis), or the density of Salmonella sp. Bacteria in the finished compost shall be less than three MPN per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) before the compost may be sold, given away or applied to the land. 

2. All composts shall be analyzed for metals listed in 40 CFR, Section 503.13(b)(3), as amended using methods described in TMECC 4.00 Chemical Properties

Submitted by US Composting Council

May 16, 2022

Contact: Linda Norris-Waldt, lnorriswaldt@compostingcouncil.org

LaBella Associates appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to the Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (Amendment 9). Below is a table that lists the regulatory section, comment, and proposed change (if applicable).

May 16, 2022

Priscilla Rohrer

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

4411 Early Road

P.O. Box 3000

Harrisonburg, VA 22801

Re: 3M Comments on Virginia Waste Management Board’s Proposed Amendment Nine to Groundwater Monitoring Standards at 9VAC 20-81  

Dear Ms. Rohrer:

3M Company (3M) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in response to its proposed amendments (“Proposed Amendment” or “Proposed Rule”) to Virginia’s groundwater monitoring standards for landfills, codified at 9 VAC 20-81, and its underlying economic impact analysis (EIA) put forward by the Department of Planning and Budget (DPB).  3M understands that the Amendment adds certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the list of constituents requiring groundwater solid waste monitoring, and therefore potential corrective action, and that this amendment was proposed, in part, to prepare for the Virginia Department of Health’s anticipated establishment of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). 3M is a science-based company with substantial experience, expertise, and product stewardship related to PFAS.  It is with that background 3M offers comments on the Proposed Rule. 

1. THIS RULEMAKING IS PREMATURE

This rulemaking is premature because it is contingent upon critical rules that are not yet finalized, or for some constituents, even proposed.  The Proposed Amendment requires all landfills in Virginia to monitor for PFAS and other emerging contaminants after the Virginia Board of Health (Board) sets MCLs at some future time. Given that the Board has not yet implemented MCLs or even determined that MCLs are needed, for some of the listed substances, including PFAS, this rulemaking is premature.

The Proposed Amendment requires sampling for six specific PFAS when corresponding MCLs are promulgated: perfluorobutanoic acid and perfluorobutyrate (PFBA); perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA); perfluorohexanesulfonic acid and perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS); perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA); perfluorooctanesulfonate acid (PFOS); and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). See Proposed Amendment at Table 3.1.  Of those, the enabling statute only directs the Board to consider MCLs for PFOA and PFOS. Other PFAS are considered only “as the Board deems necessary.” VA Code § 32.1-169(B). Given this uncertain state of regulation for PFAS, it is inappropriate and premature to impose monitoring requirements prior to even understanding the standards that set the basis for this monitoring.

 Such premature rulemaking cannot meet the stringent standards set forth by the Virginia Administrative Process Act. (APA) Va. Code § 2.2-4000, et seq. The APA requires agencies to describe the basis for and purpose of a proposed rule and the impacts on particular sectors.  Va. Code § 2.2-4000.04-.05.  Yet, this Proposed Amendment cannot sufficiently do that as it has not fully evaluated the need for standards in the first instance. The only reference to these six PFAS in the Proposed Amendment is from a study conducted pursuant to HB586. However, this law or resulting study is not referenced in any of the documentation underlying this rulemaking, and the rulemaking and underlying documents do not provide any further scientific basis for selecting certain PFAS for monitoring. In addition, the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) underlying this rule fails to meet all of these requirements and more as prescribed by the APA. As demonstrated further below, the costs of monitoring and any corrective action that may be required cannot be predicted before MCLs are set.  

PFAS substances should only be added to the monitoring standards list when DEQ has made a clear showing of whether and how it is necessary to do so.  Instead, the Agency Background Document simply states that the monitoring requirements will detect and address “impacts to groundwater so that risks to human health and the environment can be better understood.” This vague rationale does not explain how standards set forth in the rule would help the agency to “understand” risks to human health and the environment, nor how the agency selected the contaminants that it is choosing to monitor. In accordance with the APA, DEQ and DPB must revise and republish the EIA and Background Document to better explain the basis for the proposed rule.

2. DBP’S ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IS FLAWED UNDER THE VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ACT, AND DPB MUST PUT FORTH A REVISED ANALYSIS

The Draft EIA is insufficient under the standards set forth in the Virginia APA, § 2.2-4007.04, because it fails to meaningfully inform affected entities of the initial and ongoing costs of compliance, which will likely vary significantly based on the MCL value set. The EIA’s sparse analysis of the costs of sampling and monitoring requirements, necessary infrastructure, administrative and reporting requirements, corrective action requirements, and costs related to additional PFAS that may be regulated in the future, makes it impossible for regulated entities to prepare to comply with this proposed Amendment or meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process. 3M requests that DPB reassess the economic impacts to regulated entities and re-issue the revised EIA for public comment in accordance with the APA. Virginia APA § 2.2-4007.04(E)(1-2).  

The Proposed Amendment lists six PFAS to be regulated in Column C of Table 3.1. However, these may not be the only PFAS or emerging constituents for which an MCL may be set.[1] The Agency Background document notes that “[t]he content of Column C can be modified in the future if necessary, based on the actions taken by VDH to adopt MCLs for emerging constituents.” The EIA fails to contemplate the potential variation in costs, because MCLs have not been set for several of the constituents, and it is impossible for the agency to estimate monitoring costs for every possible constituent for which DEQ will develop an MCL. This rulemaking is premature because it is impossible to set forth a comprehensive EIA without MCLs. DBP’s woefully inadequate EIA confirms this.

1. 1. The EIA Does Not Adequately Estimate Sampling and Monitoring Costs

The EIA fails to estimate the costs of monitoring, sampling, and related “reporting recordkeeping and other administrative costs,” as required by the Virginia APA. The prospect of corrective action requirements on businesses, including upfront financial assurance requirements, cannot be predicted because an MCL value has not been set.

The only cost quantified in the EIA is the cost of testing a single groundwater sample, which is estimated in the range of $349 to $700. Not only does this estimate present an overly wide range of sampling costs, it fails to take into account ongoing costs, variations in required sampling frequency, and overall costs of testing when all single samples are combined. For example, the proposed Amendment increases the initial and background sampling for all listed constituents from four to eight independent samples from each well without a corresponding cost estimate. Beyond quantifying the estimated cost of a single sample, the EIA simply states that the monitoring would “be an additional cost for entities that choose to own or operate a landfill” (EIA at 7), and that “the landfill would incur ongoing costs for conducting PFAS monitoring.” (EIA at 10.)

Furthermore, the proposed Amendment does not identify a preferred test method, and the technological feasibility of monitoring at the required levels will vary significantly depending on the MCL set. The Proposed Rule fails to consider the lack of available sampling methods for certain PFAS, and the fact that the mandated sampling requirements may not be technologically feasible. The EIA states that the “regulation has been drafted to allow the use of non-SW-846 test methods for constituents … to provide flexibility concerning the test methods to be used.” Failing to specify a technologically feasible test method only increases the uncertainty for regulated entities.

There are currently very few validated and published analytical methods available for evaluating PFAS in the environment.  The available validated methods apply only to a limited subset of certain PFAS compounds. For example, EPA recently published Draft Method 1633 for analyzing PFAS in aqueous, solid, biosolids and tissue samples. The method is not yet finalized, and only covers 40 PFAS compounds. Laboratories use Methods 537.1 and 533 for NPDES purposes but neither method is officially approved by EPA outside of the drinking water context.

The EIA also fails to contemplate related costs associated with monitoring, including the potential need to drill new monitoring wells and additional administrative, personnel, and reporting costs.

DPB should put forward a range of potential site sampling costs, or at the very least give some examples for significant sites and relevant criteria for affected parties and the public to determine expected costs. DPB’s suggestion that it will seek this information as part of the public comment period for the draft EIA does not satisfy the requirements of the APA to provide the “best estimate” of costs “for the purposes of public review and comment.” Virginia Code § 2.2-4007.04(C).

2. 2. The EIA Makes No Attempt to Assess the Costs of Corrective Action That May be Required for Newly Listed Contaminants

The regulation being amended imposes corrective action requirements for solid waste management facilities that discover listed contaminants exceeding the thresholds set forth by the monitoring requirements. See Proposed Rule at 9 VAC 20-81-25(C); 9VAC20-81-260. The corrective action requirements are extensive, involving initial and ongoing assessment and investigation, financial assurance, notice and public meetings, and the costs of the corrective action itself. Accordingly, the draft EIA is insufficient in that it does not address corrective action and/or remediation costs at all in clear violation of the APA’s requirement for EIA’s to include the “projected costs [of compliance] to affected businesses.” Va. Code § 2.2-4007.04(A)(1).

3. The EIA Should Be Revised and Put Forward for Public Comment

The EIA is accordingly insufficient for any individual entity or business to assess the costs of the continual groundwater monitoring and corrective action that will be required if VDH establishes MCLs for the six listed PFAS or any other constituent regulated in the future.

Further, the draft EIA does not determine the “public benefit” of the rulemaking, as required by the APA. Virginia Code § 2.2-4007.04(A).  The EIA states that the monitoring requirements will allow the “risks to human health and the environment [to] be better understood.” (EIA at 7). However, the EIA also states that “health risks from groundwater constituents are constantly being evaluated and updated.” Id. It is unclear how this proposed rule provides any public benefit, and therefore this EIA blatantly disregards the requirements of the APA to describe the public benefit, despite acknowledging that a description of the public benefit should be contained in the EIA. (EIA at 1, n. 1).  

DPB must re-write its EIA to be consistent with the requirements of the APA, and must put the revised document forward for public comment. Va. Code § 2.2-4007.04(E)(1-2) (“The Department shall revise and reissue Its economic impact analysis… if… public comment… indicates significant errors in the economic impact analysis; or there is significant or material difference between the agency’s proposed economic impact analysis and the anticipated negative economic impacts to the business community as indicated by public comment…”).

            3M sincerely appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule, and hopes that DEQ considers the comments herein. DBP should develop a revised EIA that meets the standards set forth in the APA, and DEQ should re-propose this Amendment after the MCLs are in place.