Andy is a political activist who has worked on a variety of environmental issues. Growing up on his family's farm, he is familiar with the practice of backyard burning, and argues the Department of Environment Conservation should take more aggressive steps to limit toxins in our waste, and empower local governments to restrict open burning in populated areas.

On the acres my family calls home, we like many rural residents, use a burning barrel to reduce the volume of waste we generate. We also compost food scraps, barn manure, and wood chips, sort out bottles and cans for recycling, avoid excess packing and unneeded products and reuse whatever we can. These steps combined allow us to only make a single trip to the transfer station every 3 or 4 months.

I believe these actions have reduced our impacts on the planet. The trash that we send to the landfill is limited, far below what most people dispose. While we wish that we did not have to burn any waste, realistically it is the only way to dispose of trash either too bulky, too soiled, or contaminated with non-biodegradable polymers on our own land.

Why Burn ?

There are many things common in our household and farm waste that are impossible to dispose of on-site properly without backyard burning. Composting works well for barn manure and food scraps, it does not work with the massive quantity of paper products that need disposal. Food waste and other wet garbage does not burn, so it makes sense to compost. Anything made of plastic, along with paper coated with wax or plastic can be burned, but will not compost.

Likewise, a ban on all outdoor burning of brush make little sense. While chipping waste wood provides a valuable source of carbon for composting farm and household waste, there are times when controlled burns make sense on private property in rural areas. Properly permitted, by local government, the disposal of brush through burning makes sense, particularly after storms and natural disasters where significant quantities of wood of waste may be generated.

Costs & Environmental Impacts of Hauling

We are fortunate enough to have a taxpayer-supported transfer station that is only about 7 miles from our farm. Many rural people are not so fortunate, with the nearest waste transfer station being 10 or 20 miles away and requiring expensive tipping fees. Indeed, as the Department argues, in it's own Rural Area Impact Statement, that to comply with the proposed burn ban that many rural residents would have to purchase trash removal services costing as much as $500 dollars a year and force municipalities to expand transfer stations and increase taxes. The Farm Bureau, estimates costs exceeding $400 per dumpster to dispose of farm waste and over a $1000 in residential trash hauling in rural parts of our state.

Many rural residents do not have the resources to pay for trash removal or haul there trash to distant transfer stations weekly. With gas prices exceeding $4.50 in parts of our state, frequent trips to the transfer station are costly. Some people, such as the elderly or working poor may have to choose between eating and the Department's proposed mandate. Farmers, already overburdened by increasing regulations by the Department will suffer even higher costs, often having even greater quantities of waste currently disposed through open burning.

Moreover, each automobile trip has a definite impact on the environment. Not only are global warming gases produced, but so our toxic emissions not captured or mitigated by the emissions system. Each automobile mile driven also means sooner that a car must be disposed of and replaced. The Department makes no mention of the increased automobile traffic will have on the environment, except to argue that trips to the transfer station “could” be combined with trips for other uses. However, in many regions of our state, transfer stations are not located near other location of commerce, but in rural locations, often 20 miles or far away from farms and rural houses, to mitigate their impact on the surrounding area.

Toxics

My family has long grown, raised, and eaten much of our own food. Most of our animals and crops are for our own consumption, and as such we are deeply concerned about toxins in the food supply. Some persistent organic pollutants are particularly concerning, as they tend to be most concentrated in the fats of animals.

The reality is that burn barrels and backyard burning does not create toxins beyond what is already in our waste. Many of the worst substances in our solid waste stream, commonly burned or landfilled, such a PVC and halogenated chemicals pose environmental problems throughout their lifespan. Backyard burning simply releases chemicals that already are a dangerous part of our life.

Rather then ban backyard burning due to the toxins that could be potentially released, the Department should be looking to ban halogenated chemicals and other toxins out of our disposable waste stream. The large volume of toxins in waste we generate is not acceptable, and we as a society must be looking for products that don't pose such a human health risk.

Appropriate Local Restrictions

Nobody wants to have their dinner party disrupted by the waft of smoke from their neighbor burning last week's garbage. Backyard burning should be limited to the most rural communities in our state, to minimize the production of toxic chemicals and to provide sufficient area for their dilution.

The vast majority of complaints relating to open burning occur in populated areas, particularly in hamlets in rural towns. These are local disputes, and should be resolved by local government regulation on permissible burning. As an additional protection to rural residents with nearby neighbors, the Department should consider a mandatory set-back for residential and agricultural waste burning.

Conclusions

The Department should work to restrict open burning to only rural areas where it does not pose a nuisance to neighbors and limits the release of toxins into the air. It should also work to reduce the toxicity of waste by imposing new restrictions on disposable packing and products. Local government has a key role in limiting open burning to appropriate rural areas, and administering burn permits for brush burns in a reasonable fashion.

Proposed Changes to the Regulations

Therefore, I propose that the Department reconsider it's proposed regulations to open burning with the following changes:

1. Create further restrictions on the toxicity of disposable packing and materials that are likely to end up in backyard burn barrels, municipal landfills, and incinerators.

2. Take further educational efforts and studies on the relative toxicity of various portions of common waste to discourage people from burning particularly problematic substances like polyvinyl chloride products and electronic waste.

3. Continue the ban on all open burning in all villages, cities, and towns with populations greater then 20,000.

4. Clarify the regulations to allow municipalities to set restrictions on backyard burning in certain populated areas in their towns.

5. Set a state-wide set back for all backyard trash burning of 300 feet and require landowners to possess at least 10 acres of land to limit backyard burning to the most sparsely populated parts of the state.

6. Maintain the current system of permitting controlled burns of brush and scrap wood burns per a local permit.

7. Increase penalties for controlled burns without a permit.

8. Increase penalties for irresponsible open burning where the permitee clearly failed to use due diligence in preventing an uncontrolled brush fire.