Rulemaking for flame cap kilns and air curtain incinerators

Cooper,

Thanks for the discussion at the LEAD meeting yesterday concerning the rule changes around air curtain incinerators (ACI) and flame cap kilns (FCK).

ORCAA is still putting together a letter where we make a few suggestions about the rule changes...↓. As I mentioned in the meeting, we are drafting our comments now and hope to have them ready to send to you next week.  We have met with our board today and have a follow up meeting with a board member on Friday to discuss the rule changes. Some of our board members have a strong interest in the flame cap kilns and rules permitting their use so we want to have our meeting before finalizing our comments.

I understand that the formal comment period is not yet open, but ORCAA would like to get these comments to you before that period opens.  We hope that you can give some thought to the few suggestions we offer before the formal rule changes are finalized and the formal comment period starts. 

I hope to have ORCAA's informal comments sent to you by Wednesday of next week.  Should I email the comments to you, Phil Gent, or some other place?

Thanks again for listening to my comments the other day, and please let me know the best way for ORCAA to submit comments.

Mike

↓

Thank you for including the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Agency) in this stakeholder process. We have read the materials provided. As we read the proposal, this change, if implemented, would apply within the jurisdiction of the Department of Ecolo...↓gy and would not apply within the jurisdiction of the Agency. Therefore, we would reserve our ability to require an NOC Order of Approval for air curtain incinerators within the Agency's jurisdiction. We feel that the NOC Order of Approval process is important to ensure consistent regulation and use of these emission units. Regarding the emission limitations referenced in WAC 173-400-050 (1), the Agency's Regulation I, section 9.09 (Particulate Matter Emission Standards) replaces that section of the WAC in our State Implementation Plan, as approved by EPA in April 2020. We will continue to enforce the standard in our Regulation I within our jurisdiction. Can you please confirm this reading and understanding of the jurisdiction of this proposal as part of your response to these comments?
For technical clarity on this preliminary proposal, can the Department of Ecology identify any existing sources and/or emission units which are currently subject to this WAC provision that Ecology is proposing to exclude applicability for air curtain incinerators? It would help give context and understanding of how these rule provisions are still providing air quality benefits.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment.↓

As one of the earliest adopters of biochar making with a flame capped kiln in WA, our experience has been the following. First,  since quenching the char requires significant amounts of water, locating the kiln near water sources vastly reduces any d...↓anger of fire escaping the kiln. Also, feeding the kiln is a constant process during a burn--any chance of untended fires springing up is highly unlikely with the constant attention needed.

Second, the wood burnt needs to be dry enough to reach at least 800 degrees F. Burning at a high temperature is critical to making the best char. So constricting biochar burning to pre and post burn ban highly complicates, if not negates, the ability to make the most effective use of the wood due to wood being too wet to burn properly until just before the ban begins (normally 15 June). In La Nina years biochar burns would be very difficult to be done successfully.

Third, biochar making is an effective way to sterilize wood pruned from fruit and fruit bushes that may be diseased. But, in the coastal band from Vancouver BC to just below Portland, pruning is best done after fruit harvest, at the height of summer. Disposing of or sterilizing that pruned wood is critical to be accomplished before rains begin in fall. Again, the burn ban until 15 September normally highly constricts the ability to sterilize the pruned wood due go rain beginning again during September.

Biochar making on farms is one of the most climate friendly ways to deal with agricultural burning related to disease suppression. But forcing biochar making to fall outside the burn ban period really complicates this necessary task being done in the most effective, efficient, and climate friendly manner. Biochar burning is not at all like burning a field, and has nowhere near the danger of getting out of control as field burning. But field burning is permitted during burn bans due to agricultural necessity. The same logic even moreso applies to biochar making, with far lower risk than field burning. Biochar making should be permitted during the burn ban period, particularly since biochar itself should be applied to the fields and orchards during the fall, before the rains make the fields inaccessible to tractors.

Thank you,

Michael DeGolyer

Five Elements Harvest SPC

9498 Stein Road

Custer WA 98240

↓

Hi Cooper,

We’ve been tracking the rulemaking that involves air curtain incinerators and have a comment on the language for your consideration. I ran this by Phil Gent and he suggested that I send it to you in writing.

A little context: My understandin...↓g of the rulemaking is that the goal is to enable ACIs to be used for dispose of natural vegetation, instead of pile burning, where pile burning

is currently allowed. If that’s the intent, please consider making a change to clarify that the 0.2 gr/dscf standard applies only when the ACI is brought to the site with the vegetation, and not to an ACI at stationary sources (where the vegetation is brought to the ACI).

Why I mention this - We’ve been asked by a facility about permitting an ACI as a stationary source to make biochar to blend into their product. In this case, the facility would like to bring vegetation to the ACI to make the biochar. We believe that in this case, the existing 0.1 gr/dscf standard, which applies to all other stationary combustion and incineration units, is appropriate.

 Suggested change in red:

 WAC 173-400-050  Emission standards for combustion and incineration units.  (1)  Combustion and incinerator emissions units must meet all requirements of WAC 173-400-040 and, in addition, no person shall cause or allow emissions of particulate matter in excess of 0.23 gram per dry cubic meter at standard conditions (0.1 grain/dscf), except for

(a)                   An emissions unit combusting waste wood for the production of steam.

(b)                  An air curtain incinerator used to dispose of natural vegetative debris at its site of generation, disposing that would otherwise be legal for silvicultural, agricultural, or open burning.

….

Please give me a call if any questions.

Thank you,

Agata McIntyre, P.E.  she/her/hers

Engineering Manager

Northwest Clean Air Agency

Phone: 360-419-6848

↓

The draft rule language for WAC 173-430-040 adds a sentence that reads: "The use of a flame cap kiln as defined in WAC 173-430-030 is acceptable as long as permitting processes and fee requirements are followed." It might be clearer to instead add t...↓he following sentence (or similar) from RCW 70A.15.5090 to the definition of "agricultural burning": "For the purposes of this section, agricultural burning includes the combustion of natural vegetation from agricultural activities in portable flame cap kilns, provided that the biomass does not contain any prohibited materials as defined in..." This eliminates the possibility that WAC 173-430-040 is misinterpreted to allow the use of a flame cap kiln when burning is not necessary, and is consistent with the way RCW 70A.15 and SB 6121 are structured.↓

RE: Rulemaking for Flame Cap Kilns and Air Curtain Incinerators

PLEASE put into place the MAXIMUM protection for clean air. Out planet, the people, animals and plants REQUIRE clean air to be healthy. Thank you for doing the 'thankless' job of pr...↓otecting our breathing air. What could be more important ?↓