Asheville Buncombe Air Quality Agency honors Eaton and Footprint Project; board approves equipment loan and permit renewals

The Asheville Buncombe Air Quality Agency Board of Directors presented its annual Air Quality Excellence Awards and handled several operational items at a special meeting, including approval to loan surplus ozone monitoring equipment to the University of North Carolina at Asheville for evaluation and renewal of multiple facility permits.

The board honored two award recipients. Eaton Corporation’s Avery Creek facility was recognized for a 2024 LED lighting retrofit and other efficiency work. Agency staff said the lighting portion of Eaton’s project, completed with corporate partner Trane Technologies and utility rebates through Duke Energy’s smart‑path program, reduced electrical use by “over 420,000 kilowatt‑hours” and about “60 kilowatts a year,” figures reported during the meeting. Agency staff also reported an estimated carbon‑equivalent reduction number during the presentation; that figure was given in the meeting record but was not documented in permit or engineering records provided at the meeting packet.

The board also recognized the Footprint Project for its post‑storm renewable energy response after Tropical Storm Helene. Footprint staff described deploying solar‑battery generators, portable microgrid trailers and atmospheric water generators to serve community hubs and people relying on medical equipment. The group established a hub in Mars Hill and, according to staff remarks, has shifted from immediate response to recovery and local resilience work. Ian Bailey of the Land of Sky Regional Council told the board that Land of Sky and partners have received a $5,000,000 Department of Energy award, routed through the North Carolina Energy Office, to pilot permanent community resilience infrastructure in western North Carolina based on Footprint’s response work.

Board action: surplus ozone equipment The board considered a longstanding effort to dispose of surplus ozone monitoring equipment. Agency staff said the equipment had been offered for sale through an online government auction with a $1,000 minimum bid and drew no acceptable offers. The board voted to pursue a loan arrangement with the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNC Asheville) so the university can evaluate the equipment’s usefulness; if UNC Asheville finds it useful, staff said the agency would negotiate a purchase price. A motion to approve that approach passed on a voice vote.

Air‑curtain incinerators, biochar and debris management Agency staff updated the board on storm debris options and federal rule activity for air‑curtain incinerators (ACIs) and biochar units. Staff said six ACIs had been officially approved in the aftermath of the storm; the unit sited at the county landfill has been decommissioned, one unit in Weaverville was operated briefly, and the board was told units remain at the Biltmore Estate and at several private stump‑and‑brush operations (identified in the record as Riverside Stump Dump, Affordable Tree Men, and North End Stump and Brush).

Staff told the board that a federal “no action assurance” that had allowed those units to operate without Title V permitting will expire around Sept. 30. The agency said it expects operators to file state and local permit applications once the assurance expires. Agency staff summarized recent federal guidance that describes biochar production differently from other solid‑waste incineration and said EPA communications had indicated biochar “may not be considered a solid waste” under certain conditions; even so, staff said state and local operating permits and visible‑emission limits would still apply.

Agency staff and board members discussed that EPA rulemaking could change whether ACIs require Title V permits but cautioned that a federal rule change could take months or years. Staff emphasized that regardless of the Title V question, North Carolina’s own rules and local permit requirements (including visible emission limits and restrictions on materials that may be burned) would continue to apply. Staff also noted that, where applicable, a permanent applicability determination would be needed and that the agency’s threshold for major‑source permitting is 5 tons per year of any single pollutant.

Monitoring program, temporary sensors and federal grant uncertainty The board heard updates on its temporary monitoring network and related funding efforts. Staff reported continuing operation and maintenance challenges with loaned PurpleAir sensors and older EBAM instruments, but said the data have been useful through the recovery period. Staff said they submitted a county recovery project that, if funded, would purchase eight to ten PurpleAir sensors and at least one EBAM so the agency can maintain non‑regulatory monitoring beyond the current loan period.

Clean Air Carolina has applied to borrow sensors under the agency’s study policy to run a local deployment; agency staff said the group must supply site approvals and share data with the agency prior to publication. Separately, staff said the agency has received $100,000 of expected federal assistance but is still awaiting a second installment of about $133,000 tied to EPA grant timing. Staff warned that proposed federal budget actions would, if enacted, reduce or eliminate some recurring EPA 103/105 grant funding the agency uses for operations; the agency is monitoring congressional appropriations and has begun planning for possible impacts to cash flow.

Permits and renewals The board approved a package of permit renewals and a new facility permit. The renewals and the new facility permit approved on a voice vote were for Aprotec Powertrain LLC, Buncombe County Detention Center, Miltech Toll Grinders, and a new facility permit for Smith Rowe LLC (a contractor described in the packet as providing recycled asphalt grinding services to asphalt plants). Staff said the asphalt‑grinding operations typically are temporary, operate intermittently, and are subject to the agency’s standard controls for dust and emissions.

Other business and next steps Staff summarized other recovery work, including reduced fees for residential demolition/asbestos permits for storm victims (staff said four projects had received the discounted fee and that staff have processed 10 applications), ongoing coordination with FEMA review (staff reported 132 demolition projects in FEMA’s system, some with multiple demolitions under single permits), and outreach plans including town halls and participation in county recovery functions. The board tentatively scheduled a retreat in September to review finances and the larger rule‑readoption project the agency must complete with the state.

The meeting record shows that awards, operational approvals, and the permit package were the primary outcomes. Several board members and staff emphasized continuing monitoring and permit oversight as debris‑management work continues over coming years.