Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-19-2002 - 9a 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. -q SUBJECT: Alternatives to Open Burning of Agricultural Landclearing Debris DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 2/11/02 Solid Waste Director Memo Gayle Wilson, 968-2885 Air Curtain Burning Information TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive a preliminary staff report,and to the extent possible, provide direction to staff to winnow down a list of possible options for alternatives to open burning of agricultural land clearing debris. BACKGROUND: On December 11, 2001, the BOCC adopted a Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance, which takes effect on July 1, 2002. The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate both recyclable construction and demolition (C&D) materials and potentially other materials in the waste stream by keeping those materials from being landfilled and requiring that they be separated for recycling instead. While the ordinance is not specifically a C&D recycling ordinance, the initial focus of the ordinance is on what are typically considered C&D materials - for example, untreated/unpainted wood waste, wooden pallets, and scrap metal. Cardboard is also included. Other materials may be added in the future to the list of regulated materials. Prior to adopting the ordinance on December 11, the Board conducted a November 7 public hearing on the matter. While adopting the ordinance, the Board asked staff to examine a number of points raised by citizens during the public hearing and other questions raised by Commissioners during consideration of the ordinance. Generally, concerns involve how best to balance interests in utilizing the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance to prohibit open burning of landclearing debris with the desire not to place an unreasonable burden on the Orange County agricultural community. The accompanying memo from the Solid Waste Management Director outlines staff's assessment thus far of possible options. The ordinance adopted on December 11 differed from previous drafts in that it temporarily eliminated non-reusable wood waste from the definition of solid waste. That portion of the ordinance was the basis for most concerns raised at (or before) the BOCC's November 7 public hearing on the proposed ordinance, as it would impact the agricultural community's landclearing activities. Separating the prohibition on burning of landclearing debris allowed the remainder of 2 the ordinance - the recyclable materials restrictions - to be implemented by July 1, 2002. The question of open burning of landclearing debris can be resolved and/or addressed by other means or through a future amendment to the regulated recyclable materials ordinance. The Board may consider amending the ordinance later this spring so that the matter of open burning could actually be addressed in time for the July 1; 2002 effective date. This preliminary report regarding issues raised at that public hearing includes information on: • How would the agricultural community be impacted by the prohibition of open burning of landclearing debris? • What is the estimated amount of land cleared on an annual basis for agricultural activities? • How could the ordinance be modified to make specific accommodations to the agricultural community? • What alternatives to open burning could be made available to the agricultural community should the BOCC proceed to prohibit open burning of all landclearing debris? • Are options available to subsidize costs to the agricultural community that are associated with alternatives to open burning? • Could the "use value" tax designation be utilized in considering special accommodations for agricultural burning? FINANCIAL IMPACT: Issues related to financial impact are discussed in the accompanying memorandum. There could be substantial capital and operating costs for the County, depending on which option is chosen. To the extent possible, staff recommends that private sector capabilities to implement the chosen option be utilized. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive and consider the preliminary information presented in the accompanying staff report; pose any questions about the material and/or identify other options the Board may wish to pursue; and provide guidance to the Manager and staff as they prepare a refined plan to implement option(s) related to agricultural landclearing debris that the Board may subsequently choose to implement. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: John Link, County Manager FROM: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director SUBJECT: Board of Commissioners Follow-up—Alternatives to Agriculture Burning DATE: February 11, 2002 This memorandum addresses issues raised at the November 7, 2001 Public Hearing and the December 11, 2001 Board of Commissioners Meeting related to how the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO)would impact agriculture related burning practices. Background At the December 11, 2001 Board of Commissioners meeting the Board adopted a Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance that specifically excluded the sections from earlier drafts which would have prohibited the burning of landclearing debris, including that which is generated from agriculture activities. Interest from the agricultural community was evident, in part, from comments made at the November 7 Public Hearing where several persons expressed their concern that the prohibition of their usual burning practices could cause them additional expense or other difficulties. Based on the concerns of the agriculture community and the Board's sensitivity to their concerns, staff was asked to investigate and evaluate alternatives to open burning that might be made available to the agricultural community. Solid Waste staff has consulted with the Manager's office, Tax Assessor, County Attorney, Cooperative Extension, Emergency Management, Budgeting, Forestry Service, Economic Development, and Environment and Resource Conservation Departments for assistance and advice regarding this matter. Staff intends to solicit feedback from those farmers who spoke at the November 7 Public Hearing and is in the process of arranging meetings to do so. The timing of these meetings did not allow comments received to be incorporated within this report. Discussion How would the agriculture community be impacted by the prohibition of open burning of landclearing debris? Unless the agriculture community elected to simply push the cleared material into an unused portion of the property and leave the material to slowly decompose, it is anticipated that there would likely be an increase in costs associated with landclearing activities. Additionally, some farms may have limited space in which to place the materials for an extended time. Costs could relate to: • hauling away the material to an off-site mulching or disposal facility 4 • performing on-site grinding of materials What is the estimated amount of land cleared on an annual basis for agriculture activities? According to the Cooperative Extension office, the best available estimates indicate about 75 acres/year are cleared for agriculture related uses. It is believed that landclearing activities would occur in the range of 3-5 acres per clearing event. How could the ordinance be modified to make specific accommodation to the agriculture community? According to the County Attorney, any prohibition of burning of landclearing debris utilizing this ordinance must apply equally to the agriculture community and those other sectors,primarily the development community. The County Attorney's opinion is that the ordinance•could not be modified as to provide preferential treatment to a specific sector of the community. Therefore, the Board could proceed to prohibit all burning of landclearing debris,regardless of its origin. Alternatively, the Board could proceed with an ordinance that does grant preferential treatment to the agriculture community, until such a time as the ordinance is successfully challenged through litigation. We understand that it would be possible to approach the issue of prohibiting burning from another perspective. The agriculture community could possibly achieve their goal of avoiding the prohibition of agriculture related burning by lobbying the legislature for the elimination of the division to Orange County relating to the split legislative precincts, which if successful, would allow Orange County to advance its interest in controlling open burning through utilization of the Development Ordinance. This would achieve the BOCC's goal of prohibiting development related burning,while at the same time not regulating legitimate agriculture landclearing activities. While state law would allow such a development ordinance related method of regulating open burning, the split precincts provide a legal impediment to the County proceeding in this manner. The ordinance could also be constructed so as to define the prohibition of open burning so as not to include air curtain burning. Specific conditions could be included in the ordinance for this type of burning to restrict its use, including a requirement of air curtain burning permits. However, consistent with the attorney's previous opinion, the air curtain burning option would then likely be available to both the agriculture and non-agriculture community equally. Further review by the Attorney is necessary to determine whether"air curtain"burning could somehow be available exclusively to the agriculture community. A more thorough discussion of air curtain burning, including a detailed description of this burning methodology, an evaluation of the process and volume reduction capabilities, and a brief discussion of related public health and fire safety issues, is included in#5 of the next section. What alternatives to open burning could be made available to the agriculture community should the BOCC proceed to prohibit open burning of all landclearing debris? 1. Push the cleared materials into a pile or windrow elsewhere on the property and let the material decompose. 2 5 Description: Proceeding with the ordinance prohibition of the open burning of all landclearing debris, whether originating from agriculture or development activities. The County would provide no assistance or subsidies. Key Issues: • It is likely that this option would result in a rich soil amendment, however, it is also likely that it could take several years to compost, without periodic turning, to produce a usable product. • Space for this option may be limited. • Leaves compliance up to the individual farmer. Cost: • Little to no cost option for agriculture community, aside from the loss of potentially usable space. • No cost to County due to the absence of special equipment/staffing by the Solid Waste Management Department, because no operational assistance would be provided. Z Leave compliance with prohibition on burning up to individual farmer through utilization of the private sector, with no active involvement by County. Description: This option assumes that the farmer,for whatever reason, chooses not to use the low-tech-no cost method listed in W. This option presumes that the individual farmer would comply with a prohibition on the open burning of landclearing debris by utilization of the private sector infrastructure, without local government operational involvement. Key Issues: • May be viewed as contrary to stated interest of BOCC in actively supporting and promoting the agriculture industry in Orange County. • May result in the landfilling of landclearing debris because it would likely be the least costly option, even if hauled to out-of-county landfill. This could be viewed as contrary to county goals of reducing the landfilling of(all) wastes to the extent possible. • Existing private timbering/landclearing infrastructure in the region could provide services necessary to allow agriculture community to comply with ordinance. • There are no permitted landclearing debris landfills in Orange County. Orange County C&D landfill is permitted to receive landclearing materials, however permitted C&D disposal space too valuable and tipping fees are correspondingly prohibitive. • All landclearing debris landfilling options are located out-of-county, however, even these landfilling options are limited. • Eliminates the need for the Solid Waste Management Department to become actively involved in the on-site management of landclearing debris related to compliance with the prohibition on burning these materials. 3 6 • Most farms are likely already utilizing private sector to perform landclearing activities thereby simply expanding existing business relationships. • Private sector does not presently have stockpiling of landscape debris and grinding operations locations since a rezoning to Agricultural Service (AS) is required. Rezonings of this type have met strong opposition in the past from the neighborhood. • If materials are ground on-site and left for farmer to utilize in the future, some risk of fire exists due to heat generation within the static pile of mulch. • On an intermittent basis, it is likely the private sector would be cost-competitive with any fee- based(unsubsidized) local government provided grinding or hauling operations. The private sector typically is structured for highly mobile, variable sized projects, that can be scheduled around any number of ongoing regional landclearing activities. Their staffing and equipment is predicated on these types of operations. • A local government capability for such intermittent operations among the agriculture community would entail more costs for equipment/staffing due to the limited/irregular need presented by the agriculture community for this type of operation and the investment required to develop this capability. The Solid Waste Management Department would have to over-staff to maintain this capability due to ongoing requirements of our permanent facility. Cost: Note-Staff has had some difficulty in obtaining reliable cost estimates for private sector operations. Costs are typically site-specific and vary widely depending on individual business workloads/obligations,and other local market and site variables. We have made cost estimates below, based on contacts with two local landclearing companies that provide services for farms. These estimates do not include the costs of landclearing; only estimates of managing the debris afterward. • Having materials ground into mulch on-site and either left for the farmer's future use or hauled away would entail some level of cost. However, the usable mulch would have some value, at least to some farmers, as a soil amendment. Static piles of mulch create a potential fire hazard. • Tipping fees at private landfills in adjacent counties vary. Farmers'state that they frequently have difficulty locating legally permitted landclearing debris landfills/stump dumps. It is tempting to utilize a number of non permitted dump locations. • If no reasonably priced,permitted local non-burning—non-grinding options available a ban on burning could encourage illegal dumping. • Staff believes that one of the likely least cost options for farmers, aside from burning, is hauling landclearing debris to a private landfill. Orange County's construction and demolition landfill fees are prohibitive for landclearing and inert debris (LCID) due to the value of permitted C&D capacity versus that of permitted LCID capacity. Orange County Solid Waste Management does not operate a LCID landfill, nor does it presently maintain any management capability for managing these type wastes. There are no permitted LCID landfills in Orange County. Even with the acquisition of the equipment related to the RRM Ordinance, the Eubanks Road site does not have space to manage/recycle even modest volumes of landclearing debris. • Staff estimates that a publicly owned LCID recycling facility, as an alternative to landfilling, could be operated at a cost similar to an LCID landfill, without use of disposal and suggests that the BOCC consider development of such a local recycling capacity. Staff believes such a 4 7 LCID recycling facility could be operated at a profit for the Landfill Fund and offer producers of landclearing debris a reasonably priced, local alternative to burning and landfilling. • Having the materials ground on-site and hauled away by private contractors to a permitted landfill(or recycling facility) would cost an estimated$9,000411,000 per acre (assuming no tipping fee is charged at the destination and the acreage is only moderately dense). On-site grinding and hauling to an LCID landfill/recycling facility with a $5-$6 1ton tipping fee would cost an estimated$11,000413,000. Grinding materials on site and leaving the mulch in place would cost an estimated$6,500-$8,000 per acre. • It has been estimated that for a private contractor to load and haul landclearing debris to an LCID landfill/recycling facility, including$5-$6 1ton tipping fee, could cost$7,000-$9,000 1acre. • Does not preclude some governmental financial assistance/subsidy, however, if the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund is to provide the subsidy, it is likely that the subsidy must be available to the community at—large (developers). Staff, based on previous County Attorney statements, believes the fund cannot differentiate. • If a subsidy is to be offered only to agriculture community, a clear definition or method of identifying legitimate farming operations must be developed and applied, and a non-Solid Waste Management Fund source of funding must be identified. Staff believes this could be done by establishment of appropriate criteria. 3. County could mobilize Solid Waste Management Department staff/equipment to farms and grind the landclearing materials on-site. Description: This option assumes that the Solid Waste Management Department will utilize equipment already planned to be acquired as part of C&D recycling activities related to the adoption of the RRMO, plus additional equipment and staffing necessary to provide mobile, on-site grinding operations. Key Issues: • Consistent with BOCC interest in actively promoting and supporting the agriculture community in Orange County. • Notwithstanding some of the issues noted below, the Solid Waste Management Department could provide this on-site service to the agriculture community and, if necessary, the development community. • Large wood waste grinder(weighing approx. 125,000 lbs., including tractor and trailer) exceeds many rural state bridge%ulvert weight limits. • Many farms would have entrances or culverts unable to support size and weight of equipment. • Performing this service on private property may involve liability issues. • Equipment could not be mobilized in damp weather due to possibility of getting stuck or damaging farmland. Equipment already mobilized could be stranded until ground dries. • Due to limited storage space at the landfill for vegetative waste and clean wood waste waiting to be ground, the grinder would only be able to be away from the landfill mulching operation for brief periods of time (est.8-10 days max.). • Could inadvertently encourage landclearing if made too accommodating or inexpensive. • If Solid Waste Management Fund is to fund on-site operations for agriculture related landclearing, the Fund may be legally obligated to provide this service for the non-agriculture 5 8 community, thereby over-committing departmental resources and unnecessarily competing with the private sector. It is staffs'understanding that the Fund can not differentiate. • Some farms may lack space to store mulch created by this service. • If materials are ground on-site and left for farmer to utilize in the future, some risk of fire exists due to heat generation within the static pile of mulch. • On an intermittent basis, it is likely the private sector would be cost-competitive with any fee- based(unsubsidized) local government provided on-site grinding operations. The private sector typically is structured for highly mobile, variable sized projects, that can be scheduled around any number of ongoing regional landclearing activities. Their staffing and equipment are predicated on these type operations. • A local government's capability for such intermittent operations among the agriculture community would entail more costs for equipment/staff ng due to the limited/irregular need presented by the agriculture community for this type of operation and the investment required to develop this capability. The Solid Waste Management Department would have to over-staff to maintain this capability due to ongoing requirements of our permanent facility. Existing staff is unable to conduct off-site operations due to staffing requirements at the landfill. Part time heavy equipment operators,from our experience, are difficult to obtain. • If service to be offered only to the agriculture community, a clear definition or method of identifying legitimate farming operations must be developed and applied. Cost: • Considerable cost involved in acquiring and mobilizing equipment. The equipment needed to provide these off-site grinding operations would include: • Excavator- $185,000 • Low-boy Trailer- $25,500 • Dump Trailer- $38,000 Total Additional Equipment Cost = $248,500 • Other miscellaneous costs would include fuel, maintenance, supplies, etc. • It is estimated that the cost for the Solid Waste Management Department to grind on-site and leave the mulch would be $4,000-6,000 1acre. • Costs associated with providing this non-landfill fund related service would need to be reimbursed to fund either through the recovery of costs from fees or subsidized by some other public entity, unless the service is made available to the public at large (including developers). Given the on-going need for this equipment at the landfill itself, the Solid Waste Management Department may not be able to meet the demand of the public at large. • A DOT permit is required each time the grinder is moved on state roads. The permit also requires a lead and chase vehicle with strobe lights and "Wide Load"signage. • One full-time staff person and two part-time staff people (if they could be found) could be necessary to perform this off-site service, at an estimated additional annual cost to the budget of approximately$50,000. • This option does not preclude some governmental financial assistance/subsidy, however, using the Solid Waste Management Fund and using alternative sources of subsidization may involve different limitations/constraints. • According to the County Attorney, if Board wishes to make this service available to both the agriculture community as well as the non-agriculture community, it could do so using Solid Waste Management Fund expenditures. Alternatively, if the Board wishes only to provide this service to the agriculture community, some method of reimbursement to the Solid Waste Fund would be required or a non-landfill source of funding identified. 6 9 • Fees could be based on either an hourly rate,per acre or job rate and could be based on any number of variables such as quantity of material to be ground, location of farm and difficulty to get to, whether large stumps are to be included in material, estimated level of annual demand for this service, etc. • If a subsidy is to be offered only to agriculture community, a clear definition or method of identifying legitimate farming operations must be developed and a non-Solid Waste Management Fund source of funding be identified. • Expenses would include mobilization costs (transporting equipment to and from the site) and costs associated directly with the grinding operation. • If the ground mulch were not wanted/needed on site, there would be additional costs to haul away the mulch, depending on the haul distance, tipping fees and the off-site landfill/recycling facility. Note: It would be difficult to predict a fee schedule for this particular option at this point without some additional guidance from the Board and additional analysis by staff. Board input on the whether this service would be available to only the agriculture community or also would be available to the non-agriculture community is important. Should the Board be further interested in this alternative and once reliable cost estimates are developed, staff will provide them to the Board. Whether this option is combined with other of the S options listed is preferred may also impact ultimate costs/fees. Staff believes its costs would approximate private sector costs. 4. County could acquire hauling equipment to load and haul landclearing materials to a local governmentally owned/operated landclearing and inert debris recycling facility. Description: This option would entail a significantly reduced level of mobilization relative to #3. This option would provide for the Solid Waste Management Department to load and haul the landclearing materials from the farm to a central site (presumably owned and operated by the County), where the grinding operation could take place as staff/equipment time permits. A variation of this option would be to leave the hauling to the private sector(as in #2) and simply provide a local recycling (site) alternative to out-of-county disposal or other less desirable options. Key Issues: • Acquisition of a landclearing and inert debris recycling site within Orange County is consistent with the C&D Recycling Task Force's recommendations and recent Solid Waste Management Department staff recommendations. In staffs opinion, identifying a location to initiate landclearing and inert debris recycling operations is needed regardless of alternative selected by the Board to assist agriculture community in finding alternatives to open burning. Economic Development Districts are possible locations consistent with the light-industrial nature of these type operations. The EDDs are also convenient to the majority of farms in Orange County, which would reduce hauling costs. • Would resolve various on-site transportation/weight limit complications while still providing assistance to the agriculture community. • Consistent with Board's interest in promoting and assisting the local agriculture community. • May still present some degree of liability related to operations conducted on private property if and when a location could be rezoned properly. 7 10 • Could inadvertently encourage landclearing if made too accommodating or inexpensive. • Difficulty identifying legitimate farm landclearing activity from landclearing activity conducted as a prelude to development. Ifservice to be offered only to agriculture community, a clear definition or method of identifying legitimate farming operations must be developed. • May be legally obligated to provide this service for the non-agriculture community rather than restricting to the agriculture community only, especially if Solid Waste Enterprise Fund is used. • This option would allow the department to move the grinder much less frequently, avoiding the additional costs ofgrinding on-site and the complications involved with transporting the large grinder and the issues relating to operating on private property. Cost: • Considerable cost involved acquiring and mobilizing equipment. The equipment needed to provide these off-site grinding operations(and which is identical to the equipment listed in #3) would include: • Excavator- $185,000 • Low-boy Trailer- $25,500 • Dump Trailer- $38,000 Total Additional Equipment Cost = $248,500 • Other miscellaneous costs would include fuel, maintenance, supplies, lease of tractor, etc. • Costs associated with providing this non-landfill fund related service would need to be reimbursed to the fund either through the recovery of costs from fees or subsidized by some other public entity, unless the service is made available to the public at large. • It is likely that the loading and hauling service only could be provided with one additional position at an estimated cost of$35,000 1annually. • This option does not preclude some governmental financial assistance/subsidy. • According to the County Attorney, if Board wishes to make this service available to both the agriculture community as well as the non-agriculture community, it could do so using Solid Waste Management Fund expenditures. Alternatively, if the Board wishes only to provide this service to the agriculture community, some method of reimbursement to the Solid Waste Management Fund or alternate source of funding would be required. • Fees could be based on either an hourly rate,per acre or job rate and could be based on any number of variables such as quantity of material to be ground, location of farm and difficulty to get to, whether large stumps are to be included in material, estimated level of annual demand for this service, etc. Note: It would be difficult to predict a fee schedule for this particular option at this point without some additional guidance from the Board and additional analysis by staff. Board input on the whether this service would be available to only the agriculture community or also would be available to the non-agriculture community is important. Once reliable cost estimates are developed staff will provide them to the Board. 5. Ordinance could allow air curtain burning(also called pit burning). Description: This option would result in an approach to the prohibition on open burning by not including air curtain type burning under the definition of open burning. A brief description of the type burning has been provided by Air Burners, LLC, a manufacturer of air curtain equipment as Attachment A. 8 11 Attachment B provides additional information from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Various governmental and non-governmental contacts to which staff has spoken have expressed a generally favorable disposition toward this controlled burning method and feel it should at least be considered by the BOCC. Staff has not yet received any feedback from the Departments of Environment and Resource Conservation or Health Department on this matter. Key Issues: • Staff believes, based on earlier discussions with the County Attorney, that air curtain burning could probably not be allowed by the ordinance within the agriculture community only, and would have to be available to all. • By changing the definition of open burning within the ordinance, the Board could choose to not include air curtain burning under its definition of open burning, and consider it as a permissible method of controlled burning. • Generally considered a more efficient, thorough type of burning, that produces significantly less smoke and ash residue than open burning • Can be utilized on-site or at a central location; equipment is mobile. • See Attachment C, North Carolina Administrative Code relating to Air Curtain Burners. • Considered by many emergency management and forestry officials as an essential tool for effectively managing large quantities of storm related or diseased vegetative debris. • The County could acquire an air curtain burner and provide the service directly,presumably for a fee. • Private air curtain burning companies are available within the region. • Consultations with local emergency management and forestry officials have resulted in reasonably favorable opinions of this type of burning,particularly when compared to open burning. • Should the Board wish to consider making air curtain burning allowable within the ordinance, various conditions and constraints could be stipulated(i.e. #of acres, wind direction/speed, distance from adjacent property/dwelling, etc.), as contained within the NCAC(attachment B). An air curtain permit could be required, subjecting the permit holder to follow various local guidelines and pay a permit fee. • A state license is required to lawfully perform this type of burning. Costs: • Staff has made an inquiry with two local private air curtain burning companies in an attempt to obtain estimated costs for these services on a per acre basis. Mr. Reese Martin says there simply are too many variables to generalize about costs and estimates are provided as relate to a specific location. Another company estimates that costs for this service would be about $2,000 1acre. • If the County Solid Waste Management Department were to obtain the necessary capability to provide air curtain burning to the agriculture community (assuming the development community could be excluded), staff estimated that the per acre fee would be approximately$1,500-$2,000 per acre. Circumstances could result in costs lower or higher than this range. A portable air curtain machine sufficient to handle most jobs would cost approximately $25,000-$35,000. A low-boy trailer ($25,000), an excavator ($185,000), and other miscellaneous costs would include fuel, maintenance, supplies, etc. would also be necessary. One additional position would be necessary (approx. $35,000/year) 9 12 6. Allow agriculture community to open burn only a specific(limited) acreage per year. Description: This alternative assumes the agriculture community, through the ordinance, could be allowed to open burn a very limited amount of acreage per year,perhaps through a special permitting process, that could also contain other conditions such as time of day,prevailing direction and speed of wind, distance from adjacent properties/dwellings, etc. Key Issues: • County Attorney would have to evaluate whether this type arrangement would be lawful. • Would allow open burning in only a very limited, controlled way. • Would address the BOCC interest in limiting the impact of the prohibition of open burning on the agriculture community. • Would be necessary to develop criteria for determining a legitimate agriculture use. • Permitting authority would have to be identified, i.e. Emergency Management, Solid Waste, Cooperative Extension, Environment and Resource Conversation, etc. • Inconsistent with BOCC interest in prohibiting open burning. Cost: • Virtually no new cost burden for the agriculture community. • Would require no additional equipment or new operations for the Solid Waste Management Department, aside from some level ofpermitting Are options available to subsidize costs associated with alternatives to open burning within the agriculture community? Should the Board choose to utilize the Solid Waste Management Fund to pay for the recycling of landclearing debris from private property within Orange County, the County Attorney believes it would be able to do so. However,this service could not be limited to the agriculture community but would need to also be made available to the development community. If the Board wishes to make the service available to only the agriculture community we believe it may be able to do so,however the service must be subsidized by non-Solid Waste Management funding or the Solid Waste Management Fund must be reimbursed for expenses related to promoting or preserving agriculture/economic development. Could the"use value" tax designation be utilized in considering special accommodations for agriculture burning? In order to verify that a potential site is subject to an agriculture related subsidy or special service, some method must be developed to verify that such a site is legitimately involved in agriculture. It has been suggested that the agriculture"use tax"designation could serve this purpose. The"use tax" designation was developed in the 1970's to protect agriculture land from increasing tax burdens. Property of a minimum 10 acres in size used in pasture or under active cultivation is eligible. 10 13 The Tax Assessor has indicated that this could be used as such a test for affirming agriculture use legitimacy, however, there would be some shortcomings associated with this approach. • Not all agriculture property is assigned"use value" designation. • There is a difference in defining a farm depending on whether you're viewing from a planning context or a use context. • The property may have been sold to a developer and a lapse exists between the transaction and the use designation,particularly is'the transfer happens between January and July. The tax records will not show the new owner because the value is based on the use as of January 1. Verification with the Revenue Department may be necessary. • A developer can take an option on a"use value"property and offer the owner a bonus if the owner clears the property prior to relinquishing possession. The owner could proceed to clear the land based on the special agriculture status and associated special services available to that special designation, and then turn around and sell to the developer, freeing the developer of the burden/expense of complying with the ordinance. Summary Table of Options for Managing Agricultural Landclearing Debris in Orange County Option Cost to County Comments 1. Windrow debris on None Slow process, space limitations, site/farm possible zoning restrictions 2. Leave compliance up to None,but provides no Cost $6,500 - $13,000/acre.No in- farmer economic relief. County could county LCID sites for disposal. subsidize with a non-Solid Waste Enterprise Fund source 3. County grinds on farm w/ $248,500 capital. May have to provide service to County equipment $50,000 staff. anyone, not just farmers. If fees charged, $4,000 to $11,000 per acre. 4. County hauls to County- $248,500 capital Have to acquire land. Could locate caned LCID processing $35,000 staff. in Economic Development facility Land for facility District. If fees charged, $4,000 to $7,000 per acre 5. County uses mobile air- $235,000 capital. Need legal changes to open curtain burner on farm sites. $35,000 staff. burning definition. May have to (Private services now provide service to anyone,not just available) farmers. If fees charged, $1,500 to $2,000 per acre. 6. Allow farmers a limited Lone May have to allow limited open ability to open burn burning to everyone, not just farmers 11 14 Conclusion Based on staff's understanding of the Boards' desire to prohibit, to the extent possible, the open burning of any waste, including landclearing debris, coupled with the desire to limit the financial impact on the agriculture community of complying with a prohibition on open burning, staff is prepared to make two preliminary suggestions. Staff has received some feedback from the agriculture community and is presently scheduling opportunities to receive additional input. Staff has also examined a number of reasonable alternatives regarding how the agriculture community may comply with the open burning prohibition,based on varying levels of information/knowledge. 1. Controlled burning (air curtain/pit burning) appears to be a reasonable alternative to open burning. If its use could somehow be limited to use only by the agriculture community it would be a strong staff recommendation. It is staff's understanding that if it is,made permissible through the ordinance, it will be open to use throughout the county by the public at large. Since staff(and presumably the Board) is uncomfortable with allowing widespread burning, even if strongly controlled/regulated, exempting air curtain burning from the prohibition on open burning is an unenthusiastic recommendation. However, for purposes of accommodating the agriculture community, it would likely be the least costly landclearing debris management alternative to open burning. a) Private sector could be relied on to provide this service. The Board-could adopt guidelines for its use, including mandating a County permit. Criteria could be developed by which these burns are conducted and strictly enforced. Economic development or other source funding could subsidize the agriculture community's' use of this service. If a subsidy for agriculture related use is desired, criteria to identify legitimate agriculture use eligibility can be developed. b) Orange County Solid Waste Management could obtain the necessary resources to perform this service, either through funding by the Solid Waste Management Fund or through a fee for service approach. Sites could still be required to obtain a permit and meet certain qualifications. If a fee for service approach is used, a subsidy could still be provided for agriculture related use. If a subsidy for agriculture related use is desired, criteria to identify legitimate agriculture use eligibility can be developed. 2. Based on statements from the agriculture community, previous discussions of the C&D Recycling Committee, discussions of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and previous recommendations by Solid Waste Management staff, staff believes there is a serious need for a local (in-county) alternative to landfilling and burning of landclearing debris. No environmentally safe, local, low cost alternative is available. Even if air curtain burning is made lawful, some farmers do not favor burning these materials. Staff has previously indicated (most recently in a October 1, 2001 report) a need for a 25-40 acre landclearing and inert debris - (LCID)recycling facility within Orange County that would not only recycle landclearing and inert debris, but also serve as a collection site for(storm debris management, and as a possible site for a future composting operation. Generators of landclearing wastes within Orange County must haul these materials to distant disposal facilities; some with questionable legal permit status. Staff believes that should such a site be developed, it could offer preferential tipping fees for agriculture related debris and produce a material for which there is a market. Alternatively, 12 15 fees could be subsidized as referenced above. The County's wood waste grinder could be transported periodically to this site and the materials ground and marketed. Staff believes the other options discussed in this report would be more expensive and problematic. The suggested alternatives identified above provide the two most cost effective options as well as offer both a burning(controlled) and non-burning option. Staff is prepared to provide additional information, expand on, or proceed to develop an implementation plan for any of the alternatives presented in this report or that may be introduced by the Board. 13 16 The Principle of Air Curtain Incineration OPERATION The operating principle of the air curtain within an incineration device lies in the introduction of controlled high velocity air across the upper portion of the combustion chamber in which combustibles, such as wood, are loaded. The powerful curtain of air created in this process is actually a rotating mass of high temperature air (2,300° F or 1,260° C, or more) that has been trapped in the chamber. The increased combustion time and turbulence results in complete combustion of the loaded waste and the protective curtain created by the rotating air significantly reduces emissions. This effective and essentially clean incineration of wood waste is documented in engineering studies and analyses that have been compiled over the years at operating facilities throughout the US. 1 Air Burners 4 4- 2 �r 3 1. Air curtain machine manifold and nozzles directing high velocity air flow into refractory lined box or earthen trench. 2. Refractory lined wall as on the S-Series machines, or earthen wall as used with the T-Series machines. 3. Material to be burned. 4. Initial airflow forms a high velocity "curtain" over fire. 5. Continued airflow over-oxygenates fire keeping temperatures high. Higher temperatures provide a cleaner and more complete burn. 17 APPLICATION The ash from typical wood waste is a very useful soil additive, and as such offers a commodity that can be marketed to plant nurseries, farms, etc. as a potting soil additive. This beneficial reuse aspect of the residual ash may be important to the overall profitability of the Air Burners System in certain applications. Recycling our resources is not only socially and politically imperative, but it often reaps the additional benefit of tax incentives or tax credits. Solid waste landfills are diminishing rapidly, and permits are difficult to secure for new sites. The Air Burners System provides an affordable and environmentally sound alternative to indiscriminate depositing of wood debris into landfills. In the past, diseased animal carcasses were usually buried and forgotten. Little was known about the agents that caused the deadly diseases, which have wiped out many herds of cattle and entire chicken farms. What is important to understand is that certain pathogens have been known to survive over fifty years in the soil where they have been buried along with animal carcasses that perished from the disease. The only known practical approach to the elimination of diseased carcasses is high temperature incineration. Air Burners Air Curtain Systems are ideally suited for this task and have repeatedly been employed for that purpose with the approval of the US, Canadian and certain foreign authorities. Air Burners' systems are the preferred on-site disposal devices for animals affected with such diseases as BSE, CWD, Foot & Mouth Disease (FMD), Sheep Scrapie, Anthrax, Ebola, etc. The residual ash resulting from the incineration process, which destroys all teeth and bones as well, is a safe ash material that can usually be applied to the land, as it has been fully sterilized by the extreme temperatures applied. It is understood that the prions which are believed to cause BSE or CWD are fully destroyed as well by virtue of the high firebox temperatures. The mobility of our systems permits their placement at the location designated for animal euthanasia, or at the slaughterhouse, thereby avoiding the over-the-road transport of diseased animals to fixed incineration facilities. Air Burners, LLC Brochure, Pages 4 & 5, Jan 2002 I8 ,:, New New burners for wilderness fuel mitigation efforts Releases Contact: ov Jam s Rickman,k c m an I vi' e sCa)I nl. a 9 (50 5) fv 665-9203 Recent News ~' L OS ALAMOS,OS N. Sept. 13, 2001 -- The U.S. Department of Energy's's Los o. Laboratory tort/ Alamos National Laboratory next week e tw k r c Bates Small lans to begin employing P 9 special Business equipment P m en t thousands to sa f e I burn o f Program r am tons of wood without producing large External - amounts t s of smoke e an d particulate Review iw matter.r e . m ' Co mi tte e The Lab will begin n using n new Lab - - air- cu rtain destructors" safely a n d an n oun ces - - cleanly Y burn piles es of downed ne d tr e es new senior or stumps an d - slash h fr s from forest o es hi t t nnin a for er 0 9 manager - P r0] ect s located at ed near the L a b s administration n - sou h er n boundary.d a ry . The e n newly Y - em P I 0 Y ed burners r s work k si i I arl Y to ► Lab assists s - 1 o - emi ss'on P eI l e i stoves" with workers - blowing n 9 a curtain rtai n of air over materials als compensation sati on - - as they Y bur n within a s mi _ e n c I os ed c I a i ms - --- environm ent.nn en t. T h e f a n - d r'v en curt in- o f ' ri introduces d uc es a steady d Y oxygen L b - supply Y in to the fuel and helps P s en su r a announces that nearly all f uel and d gases ar e intent to - - consumed. T h emachines in es can burn u P compete - -- - t 0 20 tons s of wood 0 d an hour and services - - - - produce uc e about u t one e ten h t of h es m t smoke e c n r a and particulate material ri a l that is - - - normally I l Y P r o d u ce d b Y traditional d i ti on I open ► Ch emi StV burning. What's more, the machines nes ar r e of a LP a to s = a safe _ burning within hi n f wi t failure 9 all material e _ dee P tr en trenches 0 r a n 0 P en _ to P fire box. evacuates tes in buit d qs In addition' d ti on to helping' n i solve Iv 0 e wood-disposal d i d s 0 sal r of b em ' sin P n P a n - La b a d ... env' on tal l Y- r frien dl m a nn er, th o m ]o 1 of 3 1/31/2002 10:53 AM 19 decision to use the air-curtain subcontractor destructors helped with the receive - 9 oin 9 eff 0 rts to Quality Laboratory's s on stimulate t I u at e bu i sn e ss activity ty in Northern h e rn M ex i co Awards r ds New Mexico.co The eL Laboratory oa ry as to h entered to ed in t 0 a contract t act wi h Anvil t RL abo r a torn Welding Enterprises ses of Hernandez, scientist i st N.M., f or wood d b rni u n n dr al a related receives 9 services e i ces associated with wildfire e r i P est i ous mi ' ti i at n - o ac activities.t i t es Th The e e r nuclear I r 9 Y , uc ea renewable w e abl e con tr act with Anvil W Welding P cs n h si w Y award d Enterprises n ses i s worth h approximately xi m at e I Y 1 million.6 illy n o . R $ Santa's s sleigh r s ih and e 9 - After the May 2000 00 Cerro Grande de Fir e surveillance an ce which i burned nearly I 8 000 a Y , acres of Laboratory r a t 0 ryP pr operty, Laboratory r a to ry RWaste - officials a cce I accelerated a n aggressive e p r ] ect wildfire t e P r e v n ' n plan an tha t includes finishes e s h t inni 9 n thousands t ous s of acres o ac f r m i ca II da a t - Laboratory property. Th e areas are under budu 9 et - badly overgrown w n a n d rif e with a n d f a r a h ahead so-called II ladder f e a d d e fuels, which w f c allow o o schedule e flames a st o reach tree e ea canopies an d create dangerous er o us "crown-fire"o wn- fi r e P. Los Alamos conditions. led ed o' ect n co t i nue s to Crews h v a e thinned numerous tre es recover - - shrubs an and other v e 9 et at i on in radioactive e accordance cor d ace wi th h t e wildfire fir d e sourc s e plan.n. AI a large e prevention to - 9 _ -- - w ood from m the se thinning n 9 efforts s r e m in sat Technical - - - Area a 1 6 so crews s will begin using new burners rs in th at a r ea first while thinning efforts cocontinue a tother - areas o f the Laboratory. t 0 ry. Onc e crews r finish ni h c s burning n n downed n I o ed wood and slash from 9 d - t h TA-16 6a rea they will move to other areas to dispose of thinned trees an d slash. Unde r the u rr e n t - - operating 9 plan, crews s will begin stoking up burners ers - the- - - a n d will cont in ue operating at in 9 th em -- non-stop s to P for the entire day, i f possible. Burning operations n s ma Y be suspended duetou n f a v unfavorable - weather r r operational conditions.on . B eca use o f the configuration and operational e r at i n al na tor e o fth e burning rnin 9- m a c hin es crews c can curtail combustion n quickly if 2 of 3 1/31/2002 10:53 AM 20 in-progress burns need to be suspended. Members of the ma ublic notice small amounts of p Y smoke fr ok om ti ' m et otime in assoc i an association with the burnin 9 activities.e . P e r sonn I in the Laboratory's s Air Quality Group ou P will monitor t r a II emissions to ensure that the Laboratory r a to ry doesn't texceed any federal, state or local ai r-quality standards.d . Th e TA- 1 6 bur n plan h as been reviewed e r ' ew ed by sa f e tY personnel, regulators u I ato r from the e New e w i ex c Environment o Department, n o d by Laboratory a to ry and Los Alamos o s Coun ty fire "Current Cur n t D OE 0 at w dictates that cannot e ca n policy conduct uct open burni ng n 9 on Laboratory r a to rY P r o e rty , and yet still I are faced c d wi e th a i s tuati n o e w where e e m ust i o ds P se o f tons f so wood from. fire mitigation a t i o n efforts," said Steve e Mee, manager a 9 e r for r environmental activities es in the Laboratory'r a to rY Cerro r r o G r a n d Fir R e h a b ili t at i o n Project ect Office. "When looked at air-cu rta in destructors w we saw how safe,o e envi ronmentally friendly,I Y, efficient e nt a n d effective v et they were,e s w e knew w that this was the way Y - t 0 9 o to dispose s P os e of w ood that cannot be 9 given away." aY. Los Alamos o s at n N ' i o I a Laboratory bo r ry at i so P o operated eedb t Y the > <<< < _. University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy's r 9Y sN ati National Nuclear l ear S ecur i t Administration. Additional news releases rl ea ted Environmental to Science ce c Additional news releases se s fr om F the Facility n c adWaste Operations on s FW O Division ' on Operated b the niversi f California for Y • the National Null �ALLA� of the US Department of Energy. Copyright n 2002 UC [ Last Modified: Friday, 04-Jan-2002 20:14:23 MST www-news0i)lanl gov 3 of 3 1/31/2002 11:06 AM 21 ENR-ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2D .1900 .1904 AIR CURTAIN BURNERS (a) Air permits shall not be required for air curtain burners located at temporary land clearing or right-of-way maintenance sites for less than nine months. However,air permits shall be required for air curtain burners located at permanent sites or where materials are transported in from another site. (b) Air curtain bumers described in Paragraph(a)of this Rule shall comply with the following conditions and stipulations: (1)Prevailing winds at the time of burning shall be away from any area,including public road within 250 feet of the burning as measured from the edge of the pavement or other roadway surface,which may be significantly affected by smoke,ash,or other air pollutants from the burning; (2)Only collected land clearing and yard waste materials may be burned. Heavy oils,asphaltic materials, items.containing natural or synthetic rubber,tires,grass clippings,collected leaves,paper products,plastics, general trash,garbage,or any materials containing painted or treated wood materials shall not be burned. Leaves still on trees or brush may be burned; (3)No fires shall be started or material added to existing fires when the Division of Forest Resources has banned burning for that area; (4)Burning shall be conducted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.; (5)The air curtain burner shall not be operated more than the maximum source operating hours-per-day and' days-per-week.The maximum source operating hours-per-day and days-per-week shall be set-to protect the ' ambient air quality standard and prevention of significant'deterioration(PSD)increment for particulate.If the air curtain burner will: (6)Operators of the air curtain bumer shall be certified to read visible emissions and the facility shall be tested for visible emissions within 90 days after initial operation and within 90 days before permit expiration; (7)Air curtain burners shall meet manufacturers specifications for operation and upkeep to ensure complete burning of material charged into the pit. Manufacturers.specifications shall be kept on site and be available for inspection by.Division staff; (8)Except during start-up,visible emissions shall not exceed five percent opacity when averaged over a six minute period except that one six-minute period with an average opacity of more than five percent but no more than 35 percent shall be allowed for any one-hour period.During start-up,the visible emissions shall not exceed 35 percent opacity when averaged over a six-minute period Start-up shall not last for more than 30 minutes,and there shall be no more than one start-up per day. (9)The owner or operator of an air curtain burner shall not allow ash to build.up in the pit to a depth higher than one-third of the depth of the pit or to the point where the ash begins to impede combustion,whichever occurs first.The owner or operator of an air curtain burner shall water the ash prior to its removal to prevent the ash from becoming airborne; (10)The owner or operator of an air curtain burner shall not load material into the air curtain burner such that it will protrude above the air curtain;. NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE D-1900-6 S 36