Advancing Composting Through Stakeholder …compostingvermont.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stakeholder...Advancing Composting Through Stakeholder Involvement ... Vision Statement

Advancing Composting Through Stakeholder Involvement

Site Permitting Review and Recommendations

Permitting Project: Legal Compost Composting Association of Vermont

© November 2008

2 Legal Compost Project

Stakeholder Report

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Vision Statement ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 How Much Material Are We Talking About: A Conceptual Framework For Decision-making ……. 8 Stakeholder Process ……………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Participant Feedback ……………………………………………………………………………………... 12 The ‘Nutrient Management’ Frame to Achieve Organics Recovery and Recycling Goals ………… 13 Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Adapting Vermont’s Impact Thresholds to 21st Century Needs ……………………………………… 16 Concerns & Interests Going Forward …………………………………………………………………… 17 Next Steps …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Reprints & Citation ………………………………………………………………………………………... 19 Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20

1. USEPA Hierarchy for Integrated Solid Waste Management, and Composting Methods Vermont Hierarchy for Integrated Solid Waste Management

2. Technology and Policy Resources

3. Components for Regulatory Infrastructure – Permitting Outline

4. Types of Feedstocks

5. Types of Facilities

6. Quality Assurance Criteria

7. Permitting Criteria

8. Responses to Visioning Questions

9. Permitting Tiers Summary Worksheets


Stakeholder Report

Acknowledgements Our thanks go to all who helped the Composting Association plan and run the stakeholder meetings, and to those who took the time to engage in this statewide dialogue. Together we found common ground on critical site permitting issues. As Vermont’s regulators and policymakers take up the task of creating new rules for composting, the dialogue will continue and expand – an essential next step to help Vermonters turn a disposal ‘problem’ into environmental and economic benefit. We value your continued involvement to encourage and promote composting in Vermont.

Stakeholder Meeting Participants

Tony Barbagallo Robert Foster John Hurd Joan Richmond-Hall, Ph.D. Donna Barlow Casey Tom Gilbert Cathy Jamieson Dave Rogers Phil Benedict Dan Goossen Marge Keough Jessica Sankey Marcus Berry Brian Jerose Teri Kuczynski Reed Sims John Brabant Gwen Hallsmith David Lane Erica Spiegel Ela Chapin Karl Hammer Jim Leland Holly Taylor Nick Comerci Krista Harness Jane Lendway Vicky Viens John Dillon Wendy Sue Harper, Ph.D. Rob Litch Elaine Wang Peg Elmer Karen Horn Allen Matthews Alena Warren Carl Etnier Karen Horn Padraic Monks Deane Wilson Buzz Ferver Jay Hollingsworth Mike Moreau Steve Wisbaum Jackie Folsom Rick Hopkins Kit Perkins Nancy Wood

Legal Compost Funders 2008

Ben & Jerry’s Foundation Addison County Solid Waste Management District Harris and Francis Block Foundation Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District Orchard Foundation Chittenden Solid Waste District Vermont Community Foundation Lamoille Regional Solid Waste Management District Windham Foundation Northeast Kingdom Waste Management District Agency of Natural Resources – DEC/Solid Waste Rutland County Solid Waste District Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund and the Vermont State General Fund through the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Affairs Special Thanks to:

Secretary George Crombie, Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Roger Allbee, Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets Paul Costello, Vermont Council on Rural Development – lead facilitator Ben D’Antonio, Vermont Law School, for legal analysis: Regulatory Options for Composting Operations in Vermont Kate Claflin for senior thesis: Not Just Dirt: An Analysis of Composting Policy in Vermont Cathy Jamieson – ANR, Solid Waste Division manager Ellen Kahler, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund Tracey Tsugawa – facilitation planning CAV Legal Compost Committee: Robert Foster, Buzz Ferver, Tom Gilbert, Karl Hammer, Holly Taylor Facilitators: Mark Baril, Lisa Bedinger, Nell Coogan, Dave DiDomenico, Jeff Fehrs, Scott Labun, Carol Plante, Alfred Mills, Robert Scharf


Stakeholder Report

Executive Summary The Permitting Project: Legal Compost was launched in September of 2007 with the release of an Issue Paper by the Composting Association of Vermont (CAV). In the paper, CAV proposed a stakeholder initiative to: review current regulations for siting composting facilities, and; to develop recommendations for new permitting rules. This report summarizes the Legal Compost stakeholder initiative that begins to address the gap between Vermont’s current regulations for handling compostable materials and the needs of the State’s communities and environment. The Legal Compost project is a critical step to create state level regulations that support organics* diversion, resource recovery, composting, compost site development, and the use of compost. CAV also wanted our approach to these issues to support an agricultural and composting landscape that is consistent with the State’s sustainability goals. The ultimate goal of the project is to have regulations that encourage the production and use of compost as a means to protect native ecology, soils, waterways, and public health – and at the same time – encourage new revenue opportunities for communities, farmers and composters. Compost is one of the few undisputed win-win options for responding to environmental concerns such as urban and rural erosion and water pollution that impact Vermonters and the State’s natural resource wealth. Key Recommendations Several issues surfaced repeatedly in the three stakeholder meetings. To get a sense of the importance of these issues, participants responded with a show of hands to a number of questions. The following proposals received unanimous or nearly unanimous support.

• Create accepted composting practices – ACPs – modeled on AAPs as site operations criteria.

• Use science and risk assessment to determine thresholds and requirements for permitting tiers.

• Use standards more strict than EPA for heavy metals and toxins.

• Include Quality Assurance standards as part of permit revisions and as part of site permitting.

• Have composting regulations that help Vermont achieve the dual goals of environmental protection and waste reduction. Challenges to move forward • How to make rules that encourage and enable appropriate scale composting in keeping with Vermont’s environmental and sustainability goals, and settlement patterns.

• Ongoing monitoring to identify where statutes conflict or are insufficient and make changes where needed as compost science and technology evolve.

• Determining Agency jurisdiction to remove regulatory disincentives, inconsistencies and overlap.

• Identify funding resources for education to ensure high participation in organics recycling and composting. Technical assistance to composters and ‘carbon literacy’ community outreach are essential to significantly increase the recovery of organic materials and composting.

• How to ensure a sufficient supply of carbon material to enable best management practices. * Organics, sometimes called 'organic residuals' or ‘organic materials,’ refers to carbon-based materials – horticulture/garden material, food scraps, manures, field crop residuals, animal mortalities, paper products, etc.


Stakeholder Report

Vision Statement

Composting and the use of compost can help Vermont achieve

environmental and sustainability goals. We want composting in Vermont to

encourage and enable best practices to:

• manage organic residuals* as a resource within a hierarchy of use

• redistribute nutrients

• improve public health and safety

• improve and protect soil health and water quality

• improve plant health and vigor

• maintain beneficial levels of soil nutrients.

Vermonters can fully benefit from composting if we have a streamlined, goal-

and science-based regulatory process, committed leadership, and ‘carbon

literacy’ education. On this foundation, Vermonters can manage their

organic materials as a valuable resource. In doing so, we improve and

protect watersheds and agriculture land, and; we release an economic driver

to further develop local food networks and farm viability.

* Organic residuals, sometimes called 'organics' or ‘organic materials,’ refers to carbon-based materials – horticulture/garden material, food scraps, manures, field crop residuals, animal mortalities, paper products, etc.


Stakeholder Report

Introduction The Composting Association of Vermont (CAV) launched the Legal Compost project to address permitting issues that have emerged over the past ten years as composting and the use of compost have increased. This change has largely occurred as a result of environmental concerns, farm economics, and a general rethinking of solid waste – including widespread agreement that we need to reduce the amount of material that goes to landfills. During this time Vermont’s composting regulations have evolved without the benefit of a comprehensive state policy framework for composting. That is, without the benefit of a ‘big picture’ context: What do we want composting and the use of compost to help us achieve? This larger frame began to take shape when the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many states – Vermont included – started to adopt a hierarchy for solid waste management. (See Appendix 1 for complete hierarchy.) Over the past 35 years landfilling in many states and communities moved from being the first choice option to the last. Terms like ‘the 3 Rs,’ ‘diversion,’ ‘biological treatment’ and ‘biodegradable resources’ are replacing ‘trash,’ ‘waste’ and ‘garbage’. As part of this shift, compost is promoted as a way to recover valuable nutrients and recycle them, with significant environmental, economic, and sustainability benefits.

Composting is the controlled biologic breakdown of organic matter under

aerobic conditions to produce a stable, humus-like material – compost.

The Legal Compost site permitting stakeholder meetings provided two important functions: 1) the opportunity for a broad, thorough discussion of site permitting for composting facilities, and; 2) a way to get issues and concerns from diverse perspectives on the table. Only then can we, as a State, begin to build a well informed permitting process that supports best practice, entrepreneurship and the needs of Vermont’s communities. The Legal Compost stakeholder process also initiated a much needed state-wide discussion to help Vermont take advantage of the considerable benefits from composting and the use of compost. As this group of stakeholders came to realize, Vermonters have a lot to learn for the State to fully realize these benefits. A rudimentary understanding of our carbon-based world, and a basic understanding of why and how composting ‘works’ must become as common to community leaders as the ins and outs of zoning and selectboard orders. Making and using compost links consumers, agriculture and environmental stewardship. This symbiotic relationship offers tremendous promise for the future of agriculture, food security, soil health and water quality. The site permitting stakeholder meetings were a deliberate step to strengthen that link.


Stakeholder Report The stakeholders’ work product confirms that there is a high degree of consensus around what the environmental concerns are, and what framework – science-based risk assessment – to use to address composting site permitting concerns. From this foundation of understanding, Vermont can accelerate the diversion and recovery of organics through composting. A streamlined and predictable site permitting process will enable composting to have far reaching positive impacts on environmental and quality of life issues that Vermonters care about:

• water quality

• public health

• agriculture viability

• soil health

• erosion

• water conservation

• carbon sequestration

• sustainable jobs

• healthy and viable communities In this big picture context, regulations that encourage composting and the use of compost can also help Vermonters build a societal ethic that values soil. As Smithsonian scientist, Patrick Megonigal remarked in press for the Museum’s new exhibition, Dig it! The Secrets of Soil, “a resource as important to life on Earth as water and air.”

Is composting a solid waste activity, an agriculture activity, or both?

Composting can be used as both, and therein lies some of the permitting dilemma.


Stakeholder Report

How much material are we really talking about?

A conceptual framework for decision-making

Getting a handle on various volumes of material and the impact they could have was a challenge for many participants. For the readers of this document, the following data and scenarios are included to give some context for evaluating the impact from dramatically increasing organics recovery and recycling in Vermont.

Compare with existing impact The impact from handling the manure from 145,000 cows is familiar to most Vermonters. This is what we live with every day in Vermont. The Agency of Agriculture estimates a mature milking cow produces 2 cu. ft. of manure each day. The EPA estimates each person generates 4.6 lbs. (.15 cu ft.) of trash/day, not including biosolids. If we estimate that 50%* (2.30 lbs./day/person, or .076 cu. ft.) of our discarded material is compostable, Vermont’s population would have to exceed three million for their discarded compostable materials to equal the manure Vermont’s cows produce. Looked at another way, the volume impact of the compostable materials is less than one-fifth of the cow manure. One could argue that the impact would be considerably less, since we already live with the impact of handling this material, though in a different way. *Estimates vary from 30% to 60%, 50% puts this calculation on the high end for impact. The percent of discarded materials that are compostable is expected to grow with changes in packaging materials.

Town Scenario There are two hundred towns in Vermont with populations of 3500 or less. Again, using a figure of 2.30 # /person/day, or .076 cu. ft., a town of 3500 would produce about 3,600 cu. yds. of compostable materials in a year. A Vermont compost consultant puts the figure at less than 3,000 cu. yds./year based on actual data for Vermont. Assuming that additional high carbon bulking material is needed to process the material, and that no more than one-half of the material is on the site at any one time, and that a compost pile shrinks 40 – 70% while it is maturing, a site of 2 – 3 acres or less (depending on the equipment used to turn the piles) is needed to manage this amount and type of feedstocks in windrows.

What will it look like? Based on field trials in Massachusetts, it takes one acre to manage 5,000 cu. yds. of composting yard materials and brush in windrows.* 5000 cu. yds. on one acre would require approximately 8 rows: 175’ L x 14’ W x 9’ H.

* Note - Because of the structure and density of yard materials, the windrows can be taller and wider than windrows made with a high percentage of food scraps and/or manure.


Stakeholder Report

The Process

Participants

Stakeholders were invited to ensure the most diverse representation possible. They included agriculture, environmental, and sustainable development groups, solid waste districts, League of Cities and Towns, planners, composters, compost technical assistance (TA) providers, farmers, anaerobic digester and sustainable development interests, and representatives from the Agency of Agriculture and the Agency of Natural Resources (solid waste, storm water, water quality, air quality) and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Chairs of the House and Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources committees and the House Fish and Wildlife committee as well as the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of ANR were also ‘in the loop,’ though they did not attend the meetings. (See Acknowledgement page for attendee list). The Natural Resources Board declined to participate with the exception of a brief presentation about current Act 250 rules and responding to questions to clarify participants understanding of Act 250 rules. Technical and Policy Resources

Technical resources were provided to participants to ensure active participation. For many stakeholders, the level of discussion and detail was new territory. Prior to each meeting stakeholders received reports, research results, Vermont statute, etc. to help them participate as fully as possible. In addition, participants provided technical information directly to one another during and in between meetings. Appendix 2 lists the documents we used as technical and policy resources. Stakeholder Meetings

The Legal Compost stakeholder meetings were a step to help Vermont integrate composting and the use of compost into how the State manages resources. This series of meetings was designed to gather information about the barriers, challenges and opportunities to permitting composting sites and to develop recommendations for revising how the State permits composting. Stakeholders met three times, April 14, May 19, June 16 for five hours (six on the 16th). Paul Costello from the Vermont Council on Rural Development was the lead facilitator. For small group work there were also individual table facilitators. After an initial presentation on what the regulations are now, participants worked in small groups or in plenary sessions to:

Develop a vision statement for composting in Vermont (Page 5 )

Establish goals for permitting and goals for composting

Identify what to include in a regulatory infrastructure (Appendix 3), including but not limited to: Jurisdiction Permitting Design and Operations Standards Quality Assurance Enforcement Permitting and Compliance Assistance Community Education

Identify feedstocks (types of materials to compost) (Appendix 4)

Identify types of facilities to permit (Appendix 5) Identify quality assurance criteria (Appendix 6)


Stakeholder Report

Begin to quantify levels or ‘tiers’ of permitting based on a set of criteria (Appendix 7 for criteria list) including but not limited to: Feedstocks Volume Site characteristics Output thresholds (testing for pathogens, nutrients, heavy metals) Record keeping Reporting Farm, not a farm The complete summary documents from each of the meetings can be viewed or downloaded at: compostingvermont.org What are we trying to create and why?

Participants were encouraged to think ‘out of the box’ to create a vision for composting in Vermont and to consider what kind of a regulatory system would best help us achieve that vision. These four questions helped participants articulate what was important to revise and crafe new site permitting regulations. (See Appendix 8 for responses.)

1. What are the goals for composting that we want Vermont’s regulatory system to support?

2. What are the characteristics of an ideal/successful regulatory system for composting? (i.e. How do we want the system to work?)

3. What are the benefits of these characteristics?

4. What are the limitations/challenges? Participant responses were consolidated into six overarching goals for composting in Vermont: • Manage nutrients • Redistribute nutrients • Achieve waste reduction goals w/lowest possible GHG emissions • Achieve environmental protection goals • Encourage small facilities • Address scale and impact At the third meeting participants started to flesh out specifics for expanding Vermont’s current three-tiered permitting system. Tiered permitting has been adopted by many states as part of updating or creating state level composting regulations. There was general support for a tiered system from this stakeholder group. Participants made real progress towards developing a new tiered site permitting structure for Vermont. The benefit of more tiers is flexibility; to have permitting that is scaled to the risk at a given site based on both type and volume of feedstocks, site design, and the operation plan. Stakeholders, taking to heart the instruction to think creatively, came up with four new types of facilities as well as a new (to Vermont) mechanism to help develop a tiered program. This was a proposal to create a ‘nutrient unit’ with parity between agriculturally-generated and other nutrient rich materials. This is similar to how agricultural operations with livestock are regulated by “animal units” – essentially weight equivalents – that are loose indicators of the farm’s risk potential.


Stakeholder Report Working on the tiered structure was a way to bring together all the information and issues that participants had previously worked with and discussed. What follows are summary comments intended to capture the most promising ideas and consistent findings from this exercise. (See Appendix 9 for Tiering Exercise Summary Charts). Summary Comments from Tiering Exercise

There was considerable acknowledgement that composting can be an agricultural activity or a residual recovery/recycling activity. Since the latter can be commingled with the former, much of the recent controversy around composting has been directly related to when composting is/is not a farming activity and if composting should be regulated differently depending on whether it is a farming activity or not. While our purpose was not to come up with a definitive response one way or the other, several groups came up with new ways to consider the farm/not a farm conundrum. Although it was not a priority, all groups made some attempt to label intermediate tiers. AAPs were proposed as a level of permitting, also USDA guidelines. One group proposed public notice for the top two tiers. Another questioned whether or not Act 250 needed to be involved even for the most stringent, full permit tier.

The volume of allowable material for each tier varied widely. Individuals with experience managing nutrients, such as some Agency of Agriculture and ANR staff, and composting consultants, tended to suggest higher volumes of material for each tier, based on their more extensive knowledge.

There was a lot of interest in a ‘notification’ tier for small facilities handling low risk feedstocks; that it is valuable to track how much composting is going on and where. These would be otherwise exempt facilities.

There was also a lot of interest in a ‘registration’ tier. Registered facilities would submit site and operations plans, may have a site visit, and annual reporting, but would not require permits.

All groups determined that facilities processing biosolids need a full permit. Single family composting toilets were considered and exempted by one group. It was also proposed that two new types of facilities that were proposed - commercial mortality, and contaminated soil – be permitted similarly to biosolids.

There was consensus that backyard composting should continue to be exempt, though there was a recommendation to expand the definition to include groups of households (neighborhood and condo associations, etc.) in the backyard exemption.

There was also a proposal to expand the definition for agricultural composting to include ‘farm service’ composting. That is, transferring material from one farm to another as part of the sending farm’s nutrient management plan (NMP). Support for this comes from the recognized value and importance of encouraging the export of nutrients from where there are too many, to where they are needed. For example, from a dairy or horse farm where manure generation exceeds the land base, to a vegetable grower who requires crop inputs. This idea represents a shift in how materials are regulated: actual risk potential versus the definitional status of the operator. In other words, if the volume and character of a feedstock does not change, however its custody does, the risk of the material does not change and therefore how it is regulated should not.

There was some support for permitting source separated food wastes differently depending on whether or not the material contained pre- or post-consumer material, or if it contained material of animal origin (bone, meat, dairy). One proposal suggested permitting these feedstocks based on the percentage of this material in the total volume.


Stakeholder Report In an earlier exercise, one participant proposed that inputs should not be regulated. That the regulations should be based on output thresholds through testing.

Education was again noted here as critical to successfully increase composting.

Two general questions were raised and will need to be addressed in the permitting criteria: Do volume caps include/not include high carbon bulking material? Are volume caps for inputs or finished product?

“so many like minds, no matter what background” – participant comment on feedback form

Participant Feedback

At the end of each session participants filled out a feedback form. Although it was okay to provide anonymous feedback, a high percentage of respondents included their identity. The feedback helped confirm where there was ‘like mind’ on issues; provided a means to gather additional thoughts about the usefulness of the site permitting meetings, both process and content; and was a way to identify new issues and concerns. Participants also provided written feedback for drafting the vision statement. Common themes participants provided feedback on included:

10 + - appreciation for the process the meetings provided - the opportunity to hear other perspectives, share information, learn, gain understanding - education on composting issues and current regulations - the lost opportunity in not having Act 250 informing this site permitting discussion - the absence of the Agency of Agriculture at the first meeting

5 -10 - policy discussion and statement around hierarchy of use for carbon-based and nutrient rich materials to achieve waste diversion, sustainable agriculture, and renewable energy goals - process suggestions to improve group output

1 – 5 - lack of 100% attendance by participants at all meetings hampered group output - the lost opportunity in not having legislators informing this site permitting discussion - make policy that is fair and encourages composting - address the tight market for high quality carbon (wood chips/sawdust) - define ‘organic’ for composting in outreach materials to avoid confusion with ‘organic agriculture’ - fear and concern among composters about unclear regs - permitting has to fit under current statute or statute needs to change - use of scenarios was beneficial to discuss and identify current permitting challenges/questions - consider specifics of feedstocks, volume, thresholds, etc. within context of ecological processes - invite EPA regulator informed on NPDES*, stormwater, and large farm regulation to provide input - put composting in context of ‘whole systems’, create graphic for this

*NPDES – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System


Stakeholder Report

The ‘Nutrient Management’ Frame to Achieve Organics Recovery and Recycling Goals

As the Legal Compost project unfolded, stakeholders and other interested parties were exposed to the idea of ‘community nutrient management’ and ‘nutrient redistribution’ as a way to think about how to incorporate organics recovery and recycling into environmental and sustainability goals. There was considerable interest in the concept and it is captured in the recommendations. Given the level of interest from the Legal Compost stakeholders, and from participants at the 2008 Vermont Organics Recycling Summit, the Composting Association of Vermont recommends further consideration of this approach to manage nutrient rich materials through state policy and local action. This nutrient management frame is briefly explained here to further that discussion and to inform the recommendations in this report.

* * * * * Typically residents in a community import nutrients in the form of food for people and livestock and as fertilizers for lawns, gardens, farms, nursery’s, parks/ballfields, etc. Composting is a way to take unwanted nutrients in the form of food scraps, manure, crop residuals, etc.* and through composting recycle those nutrients into valuable soil amendments and fertilizers. The ultimate goal is to rethink how individuals, communities and the entire state can better manage and use the nutrients we generate. In doing so we can ‘redistribute’ nutrients from where there are too many (eg. some farms) to where they are needed – the local soccer field, home gardens, etc. Nutrient management also includes minimizing nutrient loss from run-off and erosion. Soil with a high level of organic matter (compost) is less likely to lose nutrients in wet weather and is better able to withstand erosion. This reduces the amount of nutrients that ‘escape’ into waterways and impair water quality. Composting and the use of compost is a way to vastly reduce the amount of valuable nutrients that are ‘lost’ or otherwise not recovered and recycled. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is another way to capture and manage nutrients. Where sufficient quantities of suitable materials are available to make it economically viable, AD offers the possibility of both electricity production and nutrient rich digestate that can be composted. *Materials such as biosolids and contaminated soils can also be composted to reduce toxins and pathogens. The use of compost made from these materials may be restricted.


Stakeholder Report

Recommendations

Based on the work product from the stakeholder meetings, the following recommendations are proposed to increase organics recycling in Vermont. They are grouped into three subcategories: general recommendations for a permitting framework; specific recommendations to create a tiered permitting structure; and indirect recommendations to support and encourage composting in Vermont. The Concerns and Interests section of the report, provides background on several of the recommendations.

A. Recommendations for a permitting framework

Develop predictable, streamlined regulations. Or, as one participant said, “one stop shop” permitting.

Stop using the word ‘waste’ to refer to organic residuals.

Create ACPs (accepted composting practices) based on the AAP (accepted agriculture practices) model.

Standardize definitions across agencies.

Include a regular review of regulations in the permitting rules to keep current with changes in the marketplace. Include stakeholders in the review process. B. Specific recommendations to revise Vermont’s tiered permitting structure

Create a 4 – 6 tiered permitting process that:

• is goal-based overall, (though it may included discreet prescriptive components), to develop, review, and modify regulations for composting and the use of compost • is responsive to and differentiates between levels of risk • uses science to assess risk, approve composting processes, and develop quality assurance standards • uses standards more strict than EPA for heavy metals and toxins • wraps Act 250 criteria into a streamlined permitting process • provides a permitting packet that includes all permits and operating requirements • provides technical assistance for applicants.

Permit to encourage multiple local facilities. This reduces transportation, encourages the local redistribution of nutrients, and provides a more direct connection for generators - a key component of successful organics recycling programs.

For on-farm composting, exempt high carbon bulking materials from the 51% off-farm ingredients to determine non-farm activity. This would encourage the use of appropriate amounts of carbon, critical for odor and leachate management. This, in addition to limits on how far away feedstocks can come from would provide farms with an opportunity for new revenue while minimizing the creation of agriculturally exempt ‘mega’ composting sites on farms.

Establish a nutrient unit with parity between agriculture and non agriculture sources of nutrients. This was proposed as a possible regulatory benchmark – that comparing the nutrient profile and impact from feedstocks might be a mechanism to establish thresholds for permitting tiers. Some concern was expressed about how this could be implemented. Permit to encourage the redistribution of nutrients (eg. moving nutrients from one farm to another, sales).


Stakeholder Report

Permit on-farm composting of low risk feedstocks through the Agency of Agriculture.

Permit horticultural-grade compost as an agricultural product.

Permit to discourage ‘dumping’ of low quality or contaminated compost on farmland.

Include technical assistance (TA), training, and/or a qualification verification for facility operators. Well run facilities are critical to have high participation in organics recycling and compost use, and to minimize the need for regulatory interventions. Massachusetts, with a 20 year history of municipal composting for yard materials, is moving towards mandatory training for facility operators. Vermont needs to explore options for how to ensure adequate training in the most affordable way.

Include quality assurance standards in permits for sites where compost and compost products are sold. These could be tiered based on volume sold and type of sales: bulk, bagged, at site, off site.

Include flexibility in the permitting process to accommodate: changes in feedstocks; new technology; scientific advancements.

Consider a process similar to Act 248 (public utilities permitting) to assess impact and/or trigger permit tier.

Use regulatory models from other states to help develop Vermont’s permitting regulations. C. Recommendations to support and encourage composting

Establish up to 25 model/demonstration sites statewide as outreach education for all – regulators, residents, policymakers, business owners, schools, etc.

Promote quality assurance standards to build consumer confidence in Vermont made compost products.

Establish a high visibility, 5-year, statewide ‘carbon literacy’ campaign.

Use the rule change process as an opportunity to educate and involve Vermonters by hosting 5 – 8 community meetings around the state.

Conduct a statewide renewable carbon inventory so that composters can make judicious siting and operations decisions.

Establish a hierarchy of carbon use so that Vermont can plan for nutrient management and energy needs.

In Italy farmers are paid to spread compost. Agriculture is given priority access to high quality compost.

In addition to the recommendations noted above, numerous omissions from the current regulations and other challenges were identified by one or more participants to include in review process. These included:

- A mechanism to share information about oversight and changes to permitting processes - Clarify who resolves conflicts - No unfunded mandates - Differentiate small scale vs. commercial operations


Stakeholder Report - Clarify whether/when materials are “waste” or “commodity” - Clarify when new regulations are triggered as a facility grows in size - Clarify what the regulations look like for a closed system, eg. farm, resort - Clarify who should be involved in jurisdiction and why - Clarify who has jurisdiction over what (local and state levels) - Clarify how to handle proprietary information during permitting process - Distinguish between rules for bio-solids (uncomposted) and rules for composting - Include economic development incentives - Regulations for energy generation from organic residuals - Regulations for types of composting – windrow, closed, in-vessel, digesters - Permitting consistency statewide

Adapting Vermont’s Impact Thresholds to 21st Century Needs

There is general acknowledgment that significantly increasing diversion from landfills beyond 30% cannot be achieved without diverting organic residuals. There was a high degree of consensus among stakeholders that some regulatory aligning is needed for Vermont to encourage composting as one way to achieve higher diversion goals and still maintain environmental and public health protections. To that end, and in the spirit of collaboration expressed by the CAV stakeholders and in accordance with the mandate of H. 873* for the Agency of Natural Resources, the Agency of Agriculture, and the Natural Resources Board to “work together…. to assure the continued viability of composting facilities…..” the Composting Association offers the following as a framework to address impact/development concerns surrounding public good solid waste mandates: Work with Vermont’s signature impact threshold – 10 Acres – to develop flexible, collaborative options that: • encourage smaller facilities, including on-farm, to accept low risk feedstocks for local recycling and redistribution of nutrients, and; • provide predictable permitting that encourage communities to compost up to 100% of their organic residuals. Conditionally permit sites under 10 Acres that meet a set of criteria, including: • Receive material from within a 40-mile radius, and sourced only in Vermont • Do not accept biosolids, industrial sludge, contaminated soils, and other identified high risk feedstocks • Site plan and operation criteria based on volume and feedstocks (would impact permit tier) • Distance to neighbors based on volume and feedstocks • Act 250 criteria: traffic, noise, odor, emissions, vectors, general appropriateness of site • Passes environmental predictive model test for archeological sensitivity • Qualified and sufficient personnel. Conditionally permit sites under 10 acres that provide ‘Farm Service’ composting (a landowner taking manure and other nutrients/materials from a farm as part of the sending farm’s nutrient management plan). Conditionally permit sites under 10 acres for landowner/municipality/SWD partnership projects.

*H.873 has been titled: Act 130.


Stakeholder Report

Concerns and Interests Going Forward

Concerns were raised that the group could not address. Some of these are captured in the list of omissions in the current regulations that were identified, and are included at the end of the Recommendations section. • The absence of representation from Act 250 was considered a significant loss. Without their presence the group could not explore the question of jurisdiction except to note that it was an issue and that jurisdiction is part of creating a new permitting process. Some ideas about jurisdiction came out in the ‘tiering’ exercise as noted. Several attendees were dissatisfied with Act 250’s reason for not participating….that there were open cases. Participants wanted to know why a staff person uninvolved in the cases wasn’t sent to participate. • Vermont’s settlement patterns offer significant opportunities for farm-based composting, and for farmers to address water quality issues by exporting nutrients in the form of compost. Under the current rules if a farm imports most of its carbon (a likely scenario that will trigger the 51% rule), the farm couldn’t sell any of the compost without an Act 250 permit because more than 50% of the ingredients come from off the farm. In addition, the way the law reads now, once a farm comes under Act 250 jurisdiction, the entire farm comes under in perpetuity - with one exception. (From Act 250: Upon request from the applicant, the Act 250 commission can do a "Stonybrook" analysis to lift jurisdiction off land not affected by the project -typically an area larger than the project footprint - and delineate those lands as off limits for Act 250. A permit amendment is not needed for future activities on those lands. 10 VSA Sec. 6001(3)(E)). The general lack of knowledge about the Stonybrook option could be an obstacle to increasing farm-based composting. Feedback from composting consultants and TA providers indicates there are significant concerns that Act 250 may deter farmers from participating in community composting efforts and thus undermine the expressed preference for local composting facilities to serve Vermont’s organics recycling needs; limit the export of nutrients in the form of compost that can help improve and protect water quality, and; conflicts with the State’s valued-added goals for sustainable agriculture, and solid waste reduction and recycling goals. • Concerns about overlap between Act 78 (Vermont’s Solid Waste statute) and Act 250 have existed since Act 78 was passed in 1987. Some of the concerns highlighted in the report from the 1990 Grafton Conference: Addressing Vermont’s Solid Waste Crisis have been addressed. Others, particularly the consensus recommendation to form a “comprehensive, consolidated process” for permitting facilities has not kept pace with the needs of Vermont and its diversion and recovery goals. (Vermont set a target of 50% reduction in landfilled materials by 2005. To date the state is at 30%.) • The issue of definitions was raised in several contexts throughout the meetings. If jurisdiction for composting sites and quality assurance is under more than one agency, then there needs to be inter-agency consistency and coherence in the definitions. One jurisdictional entity cannot change the meaning or interpretation of permitting criteria without consulting the others. Maintaining consistency and predictability in the permitting process is paramount to ensure that there are an adequate number of composters. • Some recommendations seem to contradict each other. An example is the recommendation to have predictable, streamlined regulations and the recommendation to have flexible goal-based regulations. Streamlined regulations have a faster permitting process that may be more predictable through a more formulaic approach to permitting that is generally less flexible. Goal-based regulations create a process that can be more time consuming and complex where the applicant needs to demonstrate the goal is met (such as no adverse impact to groundwater), rather than a list of prescriptive standards; however, the goal-based process does allow for proposals to be considered on a case by case basis. It is important that stakeholders continue to articulate where and how it may be beneficial to use each of these regulatory approaches.


Stakeholder Report • Some recommendations could increase the cost of operating and regulating composting facilities. For example, training for composters and product quality assurance. There are also broad benefits from incorporating these ‘prevention’ measures in the permitting process, most notably, minimizing the need for costly regulatory intervention after the fact. Vermonters will have to decide how best to cover the costs to ensure responsive, well managed composting facilities that provide both a community service and locally produced value added products. • If we want to encourage the composting of manure, then the regulations for environmental protection, health and safety need to be comparable to regulations for other manure management options. • Composters already feel the marketplace impact from the use of high quality carbon material (wood chips) for energy generation. The absence of clear policy around carbon resources is a deterrent to increasing composting. • The term ‘exempt’ is confusing for the general public and needs to be explained or not used.

“Trying to build a more sustainable carbon-neutral society without an aggressive approach to organics, would be like trying to get from one place to another by walking on a treadmill.” Margo Reid Brown, Chair California Integrated Waste Management Board From keynote address: 2008 Biocycle West Coast Conference

Next Steps

Several questions were raised as part of the stakeholder process. It may be valuable and/or necessary to answer these both as part of the review and revision of permitting for composting sites, and to provide assurances to individuals who want to start composting. What are the risks presented by different feedstocks and the mechanisms for transference?

How are these risks best managed to prevent environmental degradation and protect public health?

Where does composting fit into the fabric of ‘activity’ in Vermont?

Is complying with the mandates of Act 78 to “reduce the amount (of waste) generated, and for environmentally acceptable and economical management methods” development? If so, how?

What are the benefits of regulating/permitting composting through ANR - solid waste, through agriculture?

What is an economically viable size for a composting facility?

Will Vermont create a hierarchy of carbon use? If so, how will we create it?

Will Vermont create a hierarchy of use for organic nutrients?

How will Vermont address both energy needs and soil and water quality imperatives around carbon allocation?


Stakeholder Report The Agency of Natural Resources will circulate this report to the legislatively mandated Solid Waste Study Group (SWSG) charged with reviewing Vermont’s solid waste regulations and developing a 10 year solid waste plan. The H.873 Study Committee, also coordinated by ANR, will consider these stakeholder recommendations in preparing their recommendations report to the legislature for composting and compost use regulations, including site permitting. If ANR moves forward with a formal rule change process, this document may also help inform discussion at public meetings. During the 2009 legislative session, CAV will circulate this report and meet with legislators to advance the stakeholder recommendations. Given the strong support for the development of accepted composting practices (ACP’s) the Composting Association will work with state agencies and policy makers to create ACPs modeled on AAPs (accepted agriculture practices),Vermont’s agriculture regulations for water quality protection.

Conclusion

Act 78 and Act 250 became law long before composting became an actively encouraged solid waste management strategy. In the past 30 years, the resurgence of organic agriculture has increased awareness and reinforced the critical role of compost in soil and plant health, and in water quality and conservation. Advancing the use of compost is relatively cheap ‘quality of life’ insurance in a world where soil degradation – and its environmental and economic domino effect – is approaching catastrophic proportions. In Vermont, our environmental and sustainability policy goals are generally understood and have widespread support. At day’s end, stakeholders want composting site permitting regulation aimed at achieving those goals and tangible benefits for Vermonters – jobs, clean water, safe locally produced food. It is time for policymakers to ensure that our statutes and regulations allow Vermonters to fully benefit from composting and the use of compost. By transforming the policy recommendations outlined in this report into statewide benefit, Vermont can improve how it recovers valuable resources, and protects the ecological systems that sustain us. Reprints and distribution: Permission is granted to reprint, post electronically or otherwise distribute this report in part or in its entirety provided the origin is cited and the Composting Association of Vermont is notified of how and where the report is used. Thank you for your cooperation.

Citation reference: Composting Association of Vermont, 2008. Advancing Composting Through Stakeholder Involvement, Site Permitting Review and Recommendations. Full report available at: compostingvermont.org.

Composting Association of Vermont POB 112, Troy, Vermont 05868

[email protected] 802.744.2345


Stakeholder Report

Advancing Composting Through Stakeholder Involvement

Site Permitting Review and Recommendations

Appendices


Stakeholder Report Appendix 1

USEPA’S Hierarchy of Integrated Solid Waste Management[1]

1. Source Reduction

2. Recycling (including composting)

3. Waste Combustion and Landfilling The USEPA includes composting in the categories of source reduction or recycling. It subsequently developed its own hierarchy of composting methods:

USEPA’S Composting Methods Hierarchy[2]

1. Grasscycling (source reduction)

2. Backyard composting (source reduction)

3. Yard trimmings programs (recycling)

4. Source-Separated organics composting (recycling)

5. MSW composting programs (recycling)

Vermont’s Hierarchy of Integrated Solid Waste Management[3]

The greatest feasible reduction in the amount of waste generated; 1. Reuse and recycling of waste to reduce to the greatest extent feasible the volume remaining for processing and disposal; 2. Waste processing to reduce the volume or toxicity of the waste stream necessary for disposal; 3. Land disposal of the residuals. [1]. USEPA, “Decision Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, Vol. II”, p. xxvii [2]. USEPA, “Decision Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, Vol. II”, p.7-17. [3]. 10 V.S.A. Section 6604.

Compiled by Teri Kuczynski, District Manager

Addison County Solid Waste District



Resources and Reports used for the Legal Compost Project (download documents from CAV website: Legal Compost page)

Overview of Vermont Law Governing Composting Regulatory Options for Composting Operations in Vermont, Ben D’Antonio, Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, Vermont Law School, April 2008 Overview of Stormwater Permitting Requirements Related to Composting Facilities VT – DEC Stormwater Management Program, May 2008 FORCE, Florida Composting Regulatory Report, August 2006 Compost Quality Standards and Guidelines, William F. Brinton, Ph.D., Woods End Research Laboratory, December 2000 The Compost White Paper, University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, October 2003 Realising The Value of Organic Waste, WRAP Organics Market Situation Report, April 2008 http://www.wrap.org.uk/applications/site_search/search.rm?term=realising+the+value+of+organics&searchreferer_id=20437&submit.x=16&submit.y=12 Comparison of Compost Standards within the EU, North American and Australasia, WRAP, June 2002 EPA Decisionmaker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, Composting Vermont Archeology Guidelines – Predictive Model for Locating Precontact Archeological Sites Addressing Vermont’s Solid Waste Crisis, Report of the 18th Grafton Conference, January, 1990



Site Permitting for Composting Facilities Outline (compilation of participant input at 5/19 stakeholder meeting) Regulatory infrastructure Jurisdiction – Who will be involved and how

Agency – ANR, AAFM; SWD Municipality Act 250

One permit – can be issued by either ANR or AAFM Registration only – can be made through ANR or AAFM Permitting

Regulatory structure goals based; risk/science based minimal prescriptive emphasis on ‘big picture’ – environmental protection

Expedited process for ’gold star’ sites (meet A250 requirements)

Definitions Compost as nutrient management, not waste Include composting in definition of farm Remove conflicting definitions between agencies Classification of feedstocks Types of composting systems Site characteristics Risks – types/level based on feedstock

Proprietary information

Tiers – basis for: feedstocks (or not) – include biosolids (from ANR) volume site characteristics output thresholds (testing) record-keeping farm / not a farm

categories Exempt OTHER LEVELS – conditionally exempt, registration, notification, permit-by-rule, etc. R & D sites – temporary permit status Full Certification


Stakeholder Report Pre-existing sites

Complies with SWIP – sign off letter?

Interface with other regulating bodies, eg. Ag, local zoning

Site evaluation – (include relevant Act 250 criteria) Archeological Size Proximity to water, water table Proximity to neighbors Soils Water - availability for site management Traffic Aesthetics/landscaping Neighbor notification Design Local zoning Prohibited areas – (fr. ANR) Distance from water supply – (fr. ANR) Slope – (fr. ANR)

Design & Operating Standards

ACPs (accepted composting practices) – WHAT TO INCLUDE

Management plan – WHAT TO INCLUDE

Have AAFM write AAP for exempt farm facilities

Insurance – liability, site cleanup, other?

Water quality – water concerns – Stormwater, leachate, runoff, surface, ground

Air quality Odor, particulate, VOCs

Input/ output record keeping – varies with tier – WHAT TO INCLUDE

Testing – varies with tier – WHAT TO INCLUDE

Bagging facility

Reporting

Appeals process

Variances provision for alternate ‘like’ feedstock provision for new technologies

Permit Revision

Fees – low

Penalties – see ‘Enforcement’

Permitting Process Review – periodic, includes stakeholders, advisory board


Stakeholder Report Quality Assurance

Feedstocks

Testing results Heavy metals Pathogens NPK

Material contaminants

Record keeping

Labeling Similar to fertilizer Similar to livestock feed Depending on whether direct or indirect sale End use Seal of Approval for X Enforcement Ruling procedure

Expensive to act first without getting permission–hit violators hard (NOT from ANR)

Make ‘conditions’ penalties high (from ANR)

Fine for environmental damage

Timely rulings

Appeals process Permitting and Compliance Assistance

Ombuds office

Process steps – Permitting flow chart

PR – info handouts

Web resources for composters and communities

FAQs

Data sharing

Encourage innovation and creativity

Bridging between composting and energy production

Technical assistance Who provides What needed



Feedstocks identified for composting • Livestock manures • Vegetative materials

yard trimmings/leaves/grass field crop and other farm residuals discarded retail produce – from farm, distributor, or retail outlet

invasive species (eg. milfoil) aquatic plants/seaweed • Source separated food scraps vegetable scraps, meat, bones, shells, dairy (post-consumer) • Food processing residuals (pre-consumer) liquid solid • Woodchips and sawdust • Papers and cardboard • Dog & cat waste • Animal mortalities • Anaerobic digestate • Butcher residuals • Forest product processing residuals • Contaminated soil • Biosolids (sewage treatment plant residuals) • MSW (mixed municipal solid waste) • Industrial • Future feedstocks –

biopolymers (plastic like materials made from plant extracts – corn, soybean, etc.) other



Facility types identified for permitting in Vermont • Backyard • Community/communal composting – multi family/ condo assoc, etc. • Agricultural make and use on site make and use and/or sell inputs from other farms as part of farm nutrient management mortality composting • On-site – make and use

institutions, resorts, businesses, etc. other than ag sites • Source separated organic waste (SSOW) (Can include pre and post consumer food scraps and food soiled ‘dirty’ non-recyclable paper products, yard trimmings, wood, garden and field crop residuals that have been separated by the generator) • Research & Demonstration • Mortality – commercial – take carcasses from farms/roadkill • Yard Debris clean with dog and cat waste, and/or non-biodegradable trash • Chip & Grind • MSW / biosolids • Vermiculture • Bioremediation – contaminated soil • Landspread (Used when there is a large quantity of woody material and yard waste – eg. after a hurricane - that is chipped and spread on land. Generally not composted.)



Quality Assurance For: on-site use bulk sale bag sale Criteria to Consider: Feedstocks Classifications for compost quality based on X – see example in FORCE report, pg 17 Moisture content PH Particle size Soluble salts Soluble plant nutrients Other agronomic traits Stability Maturity Screening Contaminants/foreign matter – eg. plastics, glass – microscopic contaminant particles changing habitat for microbes Approved for specific uses, eg. organic farming, turf, bank stabilization, etc. Labeling system Certification for organic Frequency of testing Sampling consistency – screened/unscreened for what tests Public heath assurances – Hygiene and Hazards Standards – Antibiotics Testing and Thresholds

Weed seeds Heavy metals Phytotoxic compounds - Herbicides Pathogens Nitrogen immobilization Plant growth performance PTEs – Molybdenum, Fluorine, Phthalates

Quality assurance should reflect public policy for hierarchy of carbon nutrients use

____________________ Most of the above taken from Will Brinton’s study: Compost Quality Standards & Guidelines, produced for the New York State Association of Recyclers



Permitting Criteria

Size Volume – cu yds/yr finished C:N ratio Recipe baseline – variations C:N, moisture, retained nitrogen, etc. Slope Pad surface Stability – oxygen consumption is reduced sufficiently to no longer cause odor problems Maturity – will not adversely affect plants when applied – definition varies Water supply Testing Pathogens Metals Other Compost classification Record keeping Reporting requirements Closure Financial assurance Insurance Management plan Water/Leachate control Odor Dust

Pathogen reduction plan Vector attraction reduction plan

Operator qualifications Training / TA

Act 250 Full review

Conditional Permit Exempt (currently, ag if 51% of material used is produced on the farm)

Variances For what Application procedure



Big picture visioning: What are we trying to create….and why?

1. What are the goals for composting that we want Vermont’s regulatory system to support?

Streamline & unify regs Understanding fertilizer offsets Move nutrients to where needed / balancing "Right" nutrient content for agricultural purpose Balancing environmental impact for eco protection / benefit Maintain positive farmer relationship w/ Act 250 Reduce incoming feedstocks and nutrients Create export products Capture / recycle nutrients Protect public health Support on-farm composting for farmers Difference between farm & SW systems==>public vs private enterprise Partnerships continue and can evolve Diversion of SW from landfills Solid waste reduction Increase soil production Public participation Simplicity! Include low tech management options Energy consumption as opposed to other To not have state regulatory goals for composting. Address the big picture - protect the environment Manage nutrients so they are used in the most sustainable way [soil organics] Regs based on objectives not on what you can/cannot do Methane recovery systems still need to be able to operate Highest use of the carbon with composting being one piece of this Product qualtIy Compost as part of an integrated system Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by keeping organics out of landfills Keep $$$ within VT by not purchasing outside fertilizer Improve soil biology, carbon 2. What are the characteristics of an ideal/successful regulatory system for composting?

(i.e. How do we want the system to work?)

Compliment other states rules (bordering states) Definitions cover range of feedstocks beyond farm and home generated Risk based Easily configured–no surprises! Clear, reviewable, revisable Incentive based regs.; not punitive Affordable Cost share to work towards larger good issues Regulatory process as partner w/ businesses Have balance of equities. Currently, one ding cans the whole project regardless of benefits


Stakeholder Report Permitting incentives: reward for good and/or previous compliance Public education about composting Clear Consistent Predictable Timely Adaptable to different interests – eg farm management, societal problems (trash) Enforceable One-stop-shop: differing goals & purposes across agencies can make working together confusing. Appropriate regulation for scale of environmental impact The regulatory system needs to be adequately funded and staffed [ie. raised as a priority] 3. What are the benefits of these characteristics?

National Leadership Help achieve state's goals for waste and emissions reduction, water protection, etc. Predictable expectations improves business climate around composting Model to inform other state regulatory systems, not just composting Cost savings for generators (more expensive to landfill) Transportation savings ($ & GHGs) with more, smaller sites Opportunity to localize organics recycling Increase sustainability in all sectors (economic, health, environment) Enhance state reputation as "green" Better composting systems w/ fewer problems Apply more of state funds to support innovation (TA) instead of enforcement Educated public understands composting & the regulatory process, better able to participate in local benefit / impact discussions Less political Increase jobs Soil improvements & increase ability to grow food locally Allows more private investment Indirectly might benefit waste treatment facilities Transparent & informed decisions to build trust in management approaches Protect health & the environment [the state declaration of purpose] Maybe communities would have nutrient man'g't plans, eg. like farms Enable businesses to make rational choices – business plans are possible Cheaper to applicant 4. What are the limitations/challenges?

Public policy–balance agency missions Who assumes risk–balance How to include soil ethics, ecological modeling in economics of composting Number of people and amount of material in Vermont can limit access to capital for projects Educating legislators Resources–>infrastructure: staff & money Finding larger structure and format that composting issues/considerations fit into (eg. environmental protection); how to not lose sight of larger issues in process of creating regs

Resolving competing goals (eg, electricity generation through methane capture)


Stakeholder Report Consumer's perspective–>know what you're getting: certification of products Lack of scientific understanding Weighing environmental benefits of different practices/approaches to handling organics Inter-agency conflict Education of media Lack of time–not meeting current time lines Bad publicity Highest and best use of materials is changing Finding the right leader Requires a big up-front effort between agencies & by everyone to get started Desire not to be political yet process is overseen by a political body. Need to realize/work with this. Make sure we address the right questions; What problems are composters having today? The economics–how to have economically viable composting Options for handling liquid generated by composting



Legal Compost 6/16/08 stakeholder meeting Summary of small group work from afternoon activity. How to read this document:

– The type of facility is noted in bold at the top left corner above each grid. – The suggestions for potential permitting categories/tiers are in yellow. This information is repeated in the grid for each type of facility. – The numbers in the yellow boxes refer to the group number. – Each ROW represents the work product of a different group, with the first row under each facility type representing group # 1, second row, group # 2, and so on in numerical order. If a box or row is empty it means that group did not discuss that permitting category or facility type. Groups were encouraged to focus on the exempt and full permit categories and to spend time on facility types they were most knowledgeable about, and interested in. Groups were encouraged to create ‘new’ types of facilities. For example two new ones that were proposed are: community/communal (several homeowners/condo association, etc.) and farm service – where removal of manure to another site for composting is part of a farm’s nutrient management plan. Group # 3, as you will see below, took a different approach to establishing thresholds for levels of permitting. This group used the familiar animal units that is common in the ag community. Backyard

Exempt

1 Register/Notify 3 Accept Ag practice 5 Registration 6 Notification

1 Cert I 2 Registration 3 USDA guidelines 4 Notification 5 Intermed Permit level 6 Registration

1 Cert II 3 Gen. Permit Ag. 6 Cat. Cert.

3 Gen. Permit N/Ag 4 Cat. Cert; Public notice

Full Permit 3 Ind. Permit Ag 3 Ind. Permit non-Ag 4 Public comment 5 May or may n = A250

Material from on or off site origin, small quantity

N/a

1-10 homes <20 cy imported/yr

Non commercial On-site SSOW

Residential, individual, Communal

Education & awareness 5 cy on-site cap at any time; becomes “on-site” if > 5cy

Single family/residential


Stakeholder Report On-site

Exempt 1 Register/Notify 3 Accept Ag practice 5 Registration 6 Notification





N/a 5-99 cy 100-? Cy What is threshold? 50,000 cy?

100 cy or less inc bulking material

>100 cy inc bulk mat Sensitive location 500 cy inc bulk mat

Sensitive thresholds

Biosolids

< 20 cow nutrient equiv anything except sludge, biosolids, industrial waste

20-200 cow nutrient equiv same as exempt If violations–BIG TROUBLE

200-700 cow nut. Equiv. Address siting, water, air, C:N ratio; USDA guides

248 like; ANR permit & general req: traffic, public review, aesthetic, arch; exempt from 250

School, biz, hospital, etc.

Given guidelines (morning notes) .5 cy on-site capacity; Max. = 50 cy/yr ons-site; ~15cy food waste

Follow ACPs; site monitoring; > 50 cy total cap or 15 cy food waste

>1000 tons/yr of what they’re generating on-site

<100cy unlimited amt of bulking agent

>100cy <1000cy

>=1000cy


Stakeholder Report Agricultural Exempt 1 Register/Notify

3 Accept Ag practice 5 Registration 6 Notification

1 Cert I 2 Registration 4 Notification 5 Intermed Permit level 6 Registration




High-carbon bulking agents exempt from 51% off –farm ingredients for determining non-farm activity

same same same same same

Follow Agency/Ag. Small farm: <200

cows; < lots of chickens;< 200 cow nutrient equiv. Off-site imputs

MFO 200-700 cows; more chickens; <700 cow nut. equiv. inputs; Nutrient plan required

LFO: >700 cows; Beaucoup chickens Nutrient plan req.

Material generated on any farm is not SW, if meets AAPs

Large size

<50cy off-site input <200cy of any off-site input; (depend upon feedstock; >50cy off-site input

>200cy off-site; if have NMP, follow AAPs; (see morning notes); If off-site feedstocks, must follow ACPs ; Max. depends upon off-site feedstock 1000-5000cy/ acre–No consensus

>1000-10,000 tons/yr off-site input Bulking agent counted?

On-site generated; on-site use; as per AAP

Off-site generated As per AAP; LFO, MFO permits


Stakeholder Report Source-separated Exempt 1 Register/Notify






Develop list of acceptable inputs/products

0-99 cy Min land size TBD

100-3000 cy 3001 50,000 cy 50,000+ cy

Low vol. & risk feedstock 20-50 cy/yr

Low risk feedstock Human pathogens Up to 250 cy/yr

High risk feedstocks 250+ cy Site sensitivity

Based on volume Very high

0-200 cow nut. equiv.; No sludge, bio, indust.

200-700 cow nut. Equiv. Address siting, water, air, C:N ratio; USDA guides

Post-con, vegetative mat only; small scale; No animal by products

Animal needs some regs.

<10% of total

feedstock. 10-25% total feedstock

>25% total feedstock

MSW/Biosolids

Exempt 1 Register/Notify 3 Accept Ag practice 5 Registration 6 Notification





N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Any size Also soil from

bioremediation sites – eg fuel oil spill, contamination from N-based explosives (firing range)

Single family composting toilets

Always Always Full permit, any size


Stakeholder Report Research & Development Exempt 1 Register/Notify






N/a N/a Pilots: approval by letter (to specify)

To 1000 cy

*** Depends on

scale ***

Depends on

scale; length of project; risk

Yard Debris Exempt 1 Register/Notify






N/a Any see BMPs + Food + Manure Incl. dog & cat; trash;

contaminants – need to determine how much is ok

Some level of cert; market potential decrease due to contamination

<100cy 100-1000cy >1000cy


Stakeholder Report Chip & Grind Exempt 1 Register/Notify






Comment: 1. SW defin (veg waste) dictates ANR vs AG regs 2. What rules is it permitted under? NOT C & D

When processed and not disposed

General Requirements Exempt 4 From state regs. No ex. from WQ, Air etc.

1 Register/Notify 3 Accept Ag pract. 5 Registration 6 Notification





Always required BMPs Once off/change reporting

Water quality criteria BMPs, Min. land size

FORCE rpt requirements Educational/promotion materials

Conform w/provided checklist & recordkeeping

Same as notify W/reporting

Specific siting requirements

If farm follows AAPs If low volume / acre

Still need to follow ACPs but no monitoring; links with education

Product remains on-site unless meets PFRP*

Need leachate plan; Meets PFRP



PFRP – process to further reduce pathogens


Stakeholder Report New proposed facility types: Communal Exempt 1 Register/Notify

3 Accept Ag pract. 5 Registration

1 Cert I 2 Registration 3 USDA guidelines 4 Notification 5 Intermed Permit level

1 Cert II 3 Gen. Permit Ag.



More than 1 family; non-community; may include SS food waste; bulk; manure; no dog & cat 0-20 cow equiv nutrient

On Farm Exempt 1 Register/Notify






Inc on farm mortality No SW exemption if take SW

Special regs–depends on # of mortalities

Commercial Mortality Exempt 1 Register/Notify





Full Permit 3 Ind. Permit Ag 3 Ind. Permit non-Ag 4 Public comment 5 May or may not A250

*****


Stakeholder Report

Documents

Advancing Composting Through Stakeholder …compostingvermont.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stakeholder...Advancing Composting Through Stakeholder Involvement ... Vision Statement