HomeMy WebLinkAbout20252981.tiffINVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC
Case Number USR24-0019
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to
Hearing
At
Hearing
1
Jeri Yarbrough
letter
received September
4, 2024
X
—
2
Gina
Michel,
Dave and Joe Sack
—
letter
received
September
23, 2024
X
3
Reininger —
letter
received September
15,
2024
X
Travis
4
Colleen
O'Neil
letter
received September
17,
2024
X
—
5
Sharon
O'Neil
— letter
received September
25, 2024
X
6
Rachel
Brown
email
received September
17,
2024
X
—
7
Tony
Hale
email
via Jeri Yarbrough
received
December 12,
2023
X
8
James Stewardson
—
letter
received October
21,
2024
X
9
Hale
letter
dated
September
17,
2024
X
Tony
—
10
Environmental
9, 2024
and Animal
Defense
(eaDefense)
—
letter
received October
X
11
Dr. Chelsea
Luedke,
DVM
— letter
received October
16,
2024
X
12
Response
from applicant
February 26, 2025
Letter
addressing concerns
X
—
13
Response
created
p
equal
from Application
and
ppX
how
to tell
February 26, 2025 — All Biochars are not
them apart
14
Response
Laboratories
from
(PAH
applicant
and
PCB
February
test
26,
results)
2025
Northern
California
Accutest
X
—
15
Response
from applicant
February 26, 2025
Emissions summary
X
—
16
letter
Response
from applicant
February 26, 2025
—
Response
to eaDefense
X
17
Response
site
from applicant
February
26, 2025
CDPHE
requirements
for the
X
—
18
Biochar
Community
Meeting
notice
and summary October
12,
2024
X
19
Colleen
O'Neil
—
letter
received October
7, 2025
X
20
Alexa
2025
McKay
— CDPHE
enforcement
reports
email
received October
7,
X
21
Jeremy
October
McKay
7,
2025
Environmental
and Animal
Defense,
email
received
X
—
I hereby certify that the twenty one items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning
Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commissioners' hearing.
OvcQ9,_,
Diana Aungst, Planner
Diana Aungst
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jeri Yarbrough <yarbroughacres@icloud.com>
Wednesday, September 4, 2024 12:27 PM
Diana Aungst
Bio char
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Diana
I got your post card in the mail. Does all the objections need to be written up by sept 23rd?
Of course I oppose the special use permit for the Bio Char facility, it will affect my right to farm my alfalfa field
located next to property . With the run off of water and the historic flood irrigation. The concerns for my health
and my animals from the dust and smoke. The dust from the charcoal can cause cancer. Also from burning
can cause contamination to the ground. I will loose income from my horse boarding facility my boarders plan
on leaving if this is approved they have concerns about the welfare of their horses health, being that they will
be 100 feet from Bio Char. Also the wildlife will be impacted from the bald eagles to the pelicans, water fowl
and hawks. I have hired an environment and animal welfare lawyers. They will be contacting you also , I will
be sending the articles I have found about the health concerns living next to bio char. Also Bio char was on an
episode dirtiest jobs. This is not the place for such a facility located so close to all of our homes.
Jeri Yarbrough
303-210-8974
Sent from my iPhone
1
Diana Aungst
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jeri Yarbrough <yarbroughacres@icloud.com>
Wednesday, September 4, 2024 12:33 PM
Diana Aungst
Bio char
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Articles about bio char
1
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:3646-3652
DOI 10.1007/s11356-013-2334-1
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Biochar production increases the polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon content in surrounding soils and potential
cancer risk
Marcin Kusmierz • Patryk Oleszczuk
Received: 28 August 2013 /Accepted: 4 November 2013 /Published online: 26 November 2013
CO The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract The objectives of the study were the identification
of the source of contamination of soils and estimation of the
potential cancer risk that may be caused by contact with soils
situated in the vicinity of biochar production sites. Samples of
soils collected in the immediate vicinity of traditional biochar-
producing plants, located within the area of the Bieszczady
National Park (Poland), were analysed for the content of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The sum of the
content of 16 PAHs varied within the range of 1.80-101.3 µg/
g, exceeding the norms permitted in many European coun-
tries. The calculated coefficients on the basis of which one can
determine the origin of PAHs (molecular diagnostic ratios)
demonstrated that the potential source of PAHs in the soils
may be processes related with the production of biochar.
Estimation on the basis of the results of incremental lifetime
cancer risks (ILCRs) within the range of 2.33.1O 4-1.05.1O
indicated that the soils studied may constitute a significant
cancer risk for persons who have contact with them. The
values of ILCRS should be considered as at least high, which
permits the conclusion that sites of that type may create a
hazard to human health.
Keywords PAHs • Biochar • Soil • Risk assessment •
Molecular diagnostic ratios • Incremental lifetime cancer risks
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s 11356-013-2334-1) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
M. Kusmierz • P. Oleszczuk (�)
Department of Environmental Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, 3
Maria Curie-Sklodowska Square, Lublin 20-031, Poland
e-mail: patryk.oleszczuk@poczta.umcs.lublin.pl
Introduction
The method of sequestration (capture and long-term storage)
of atmospheric CO2 proposed by Lehmann (2007), consisting
in the transformation of biomass into biochar and its deposi-
tion in soils, gained notable interest in the world of science.
Research in this area is conducted in many places in the world,
e.g. in Zambia, Tanzania, Malaysia and Nepal. Biochars used
in such studies are usually produced locally, with traditional
methods. Also, the unloading of kilns, reloading, transport and
dosage of biochars to soils are most frequently done by hand.
Unfortunately, due to their properties, biochars may be dan-
gerous to ecosystems and to human health. Polycylic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) contained in biochars create a risk to
living organisms and to humans when they come in contact
with those materials as well as with the soils amended with
them (Oleszczuk et al. 2013; Sims and Overcash 1983).
Workers employed in the production and transport of biochars
are particularly exposed. The area of that risk increases fol-
lowing the growing popularity of biochar use.
The methods of biochar production are simple, known for a
very long time, and can be applied in countries that do not
have advanced technologies. The results of numerous studies
indicate a positive effect of biochars on the physical, chemical
and biological properties of soils. Biochars are becoming a
material that is more and more often used for the improvement
of soil properties, with simultaneous beneficial effect
consisting in mitigating climate change. With relation to the
growing popularity of the utilisation of biochar, an increasing
number of people will have contact with biochars and with
soils remediated with their use, which may cause a notable
expansion of the risk group. This results from the fact that in
the course of biochar production, highly dangerous PAHs are
formed (Freddo et al. 2012; Oleszczuk et al. 2013). They are
formed through the degradation of lignins and cellulose, on
the pathway of unimolecular reactions, such as dealkylation,
Springer
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:3646-3652
3647
dehydrogenation, cyclisation, aromatisation and/or radical re-
actions. Sixteen of them, due to their potentially mutagenic
and carcinogenic properties, have been given the status of
priority substances in the USA and in the European Union
(Sims and Overcash 1983).
Biochar produced with the traditional method is
characterised by very low mechanical strength and high brit-
tleness; therefore, during the emptying of kilns, shifting,
reloading and transport, it undergoes considerable fragmenta-
tion. As a consequence, in the vicinity of kilns, fine coal gets
into the soil, and the silt fractions of biochar are carried with
the wind over longer distances. In the immediate vicinity of
the kilns, soil may also be contaminated with the liquid
products of pyrolysis. PAHs migrating into the soil together
with biochar are very hard -biodegradable (Koelmans et al.
2006), which contributes to their increased stability in the
soils and extends the time over which they may pose a threat
to organisms and to the environment.
Workers employed in the production and transport of bio-
char are particularly exposed to contact with contaminated
soil. Soil particles cannot only settle on the skin but they can
also be accidentally ingested and inhaled. As mentioned ear-
lier, the numbers of people involved in the production of
biochar, and thus exposed to contact with contaminated soil,
will grow following the scale of application of those materials.
In this context, the assessment of risk related with environ-
mental pollution resulting from biochar production is
important.
The objectives of the study were to determine the level of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils in the vicinity of
traditional biochar kilns, to identify by means of the molec-
ular diagnostic ratios (MDRs) the sources of the PAHs and
to assess the risk of cancer related with the presence of those
compounds in soils. This will permit to determine how sites
related with the production of biochar affect the quality of
soils and indirectly human health.
Methods and materials
Soil sampling and preparation
Soil samples for analyses were taken from five localities
where biochars are produced with the traditional methods on
a seasonal basis: Smerek (Wla, a, Wlb, b, W 1 c), Habkowice
(W2a, W2b), Smolnik (W2a, W3b), Maniow (W4a, W4b)
and Muczne (W5a, W5b). All of those localities are situated
in the area on the Bieszczady National Park in the south-
eastern part of Poland (Fig. S1). The portable ring kilns with
a capacity of 15 m3 are used to obtain biochars in this area.
Mixture of grey alder, silver birch and aspen poplar is used for
biochar production. During the burning process, the tempera-
ture inside the kiln is about 400-500 °C. The primary products
of the process are solids (charcoal, coke breeze), liquids (tar,
methanol, water), gases and atmospheric particles bound with
organic and inorganic contaminants. All the biochar-
producing facilities from which soil samples were taken were
situated in forest areas.
Soil samples were collected in the spring of 2012 from a 0 -
to 20 -cm horizon close to the kilns (5-10 m) using a stainless
steel corer (5 x 60 cm i.d.). The cores were placed into ziplock
bags and transported to the laboratory. Samples for the deter-
mination of physico-chemical properties and PAH contents
were air-dried in an air-conditioned storage room for 2 days
(20 °C, in darkness), mechanically crushed and passed
through a 2 -mm sieve. Then, samples were kept in glass jars
(previously cleaned by rinsing with acetonitrile) and stored in
a laboratory freezer (-4 °C). Physico-chemical properties of
the soil studied are presented in Table S1 (Supplemental
Material, page 3).
PAH analysis
Dry soil samples were extracted using an accelerated solvent
extractor (ASE 100) from Dionex GmbH (Idstein, Germany).
The extraction program was based on the ASE Dionex appli-
cation note 313 for PAHs in soil and sediment. Next, the
extracts were evaporated and purified by solid -phase extrac-
tion according to the procedure described elsewhere
(Oleszczuk and Baran 2004). A qualitative and quantitative
analysis of PAHs was carried out on a high-performance
liquid chromatograph (Waters, e2695) with photodiode array
(Waters 2998) and fluorescence (Waters 2475) detectors. A
Waters PAH Cl8RP 8RP (5 pm, 4.6 x 250 mm) column was used
for the separation of 16 PAHs. Detection was carried out at
254 nm. Elution of all PAH was carried out for 32 min.
Recoveries for the total procedures (sample preparation, ex-
traction and SPE) ranged between 81 and 90 % for individual
PAHs. Precision expressed as relative standard deviation was
below 12 %. The concentrations reported here have, therefore,
not been corrected for losses. The procedural blank was de-
termined by going through the same extraction and clean-up
procedures for each series of samples. None of the analytical
blanks were found to have detectable contamination of the
monitoring PAHs, and thus, the results were not blank -
corrected.
A diagnostic tool that is frequently used for the identifica-
tion of the sources of PAHs is the MDRs (Oleszczuk and
Pranagal 2007; Tobiszewski and Namiesnik 2012). Their
application is based on the assumption that certain PAHs are
emitted at relatively constant source -related proportions and
that those proportions are retained after reaching the receiver
(Katsoyiannis et al. 2011).
Individual MDRs do not uniquely identify the source of
PAHs: some of them, like, e.g. BaA/(BaA+CHR), are
characterised by considerable variability within a source type;
Springer
3648 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:3646-3652
others, like FLA/(FLA+PYR), may have similar values for
various sources (Tobiszewski and Namiesnik 2012). For a
more accurate determination of the origin of PAHs, two or
more MDRs can be used. In this study, three MDRs were
used: FLA/(FLA+PYR), IcdP/(IcdP+BghiP) and ANT/
(ANT+PHE). However, some authors question the applicabil-
ity of the latter ratio (Brandli et al. 2008); their use is widely
adopted in the literature for the identification of the origin of
PAHs in soils (Bucheli et al. 2004; De La Tone -Roche et al.
2009; Liu et al. 2010; Maliszewska-Kordybach et al. 2008;
Marusenko et al. 2011; Placha et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2007,
2010).
Incremental lifetime cancer risk
Assessing the threat to human health, the incremental lifetime
cancer risks (ILCRs) were estimated. It was assumed that
PAHs penetrate into the human organism in three ways:
through accidental ingestion of soil particles, inhalation of soil
particles and dermal contact. The calculations were performed
on the basis of the following equations (Peng et al. 2011; US
EPA, OSWER 1991, 2009):
CS = CNAP•TEFNAP + • • • + CIcdP•TEFIcdP
(1)
ILCRsingestion = (CSCFCSFinw(BW/70)113•IRsoirEF•ED
/(BW•AT)
ILCRSdernal =
(2)
(CSCFCSFder'(BW/70)'/3 •SA•EV•AF•ABS•EF•ED
/(BW•AT)
ILCRsinhalation
(CS.CSF.nh•IRair• (BW/70)1 /3 •EF•ED
/BW•AT•PEF
ILCRs = ILCRsingestion + ILCRsdernal + ILCRsinhalation
(3)
(5)
For calculations of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) equivalent con-
centrations (CS), the scheme developed by Nisbet and LaGoy
(1992) was used, due to the current knowledge about toxic
potency of individual PAHs relative to their BaP concentration
(Petry et al. 1996), reliability and consistency across many
studies (Masiol et al. 2013). It was assumed that exposed
persons are working in biochar manufacturing for 25 years,
250 days per year, their average body weight is 70 kg and their
life expectancy is 70 years. Conservative values of inhalation
rate (15 m3/day) (US EPA National Center for Environmental
Assessment and Washington 2011) and ingestion cancer slope
factor CSFi„g= 1.2 (mg kg -1 day -ill were used (Gaylor et al.
2000). All the parameters used in the calculations are present-
ed in the Supplementary material (Table S2, page 4).
Results and discussion
It is accepted that combustion processes and release of petro-
leum products are the two main sources of anthropogenic
PAHs in the environment (Sims and Overcash 1983). Most
of those compounds accumulate in the soil (Desaules et al.
2008; Maliszewska-Kordybach et al. 2009), but precise deter-
mination of the source of their origin is not an easy task
(Tobiszewski and Namiesnik 2012).
PAH content in soils
Table 1 presents the total content of 16 PAHs in the soil
samples analysed. The values of the total content fall within
the range of 1.8-101.3 µg/g (median 16.5 µg/g, mean value
29.7 µg/g). The lowest levels of PAHs were observed in
samples W2a (1.80 µg/g), W 1 c (4.20 µg/g) and W3a
(6.83 µg/g). A particularly high level of those compounds
was noted in sample W3b (101.28 µg/g). The level of PAHs at
as many as four out of the five localities (W 1 a—W5b) was
higher than 10 µg/g, and at two (W3b and W5b) sites, it
exceeded 50 µg/g. Compared to the average levels of PAHs
in the soils of Switzerland (0.145-0.593 µg/g), Germany
(0.100-0.775 µg/g) (Desaules et al. 2008) and Poland
(0.028-2.445 µg/g) (Maliszewska-Kordybach 1996;
Oleszczuk and Pranagal 2007), those values are very high.
The difference is smaller compared to the soils in the big cities
of Asia. The levels of PAHs in the soils in Hong Kong fall
within the range of 0.147-8.04 µg/g (average) (Man et al.
2013), while in Beijing, they vary from 0.178 to 12.14 µgig
Table 1 The concentration of PAHs in examined samples, BaPeq
benzo(a )pyrene equivalent concentrations and incremental lifetime can-
cer risks (ILCRs)
Sample name PAHl6 (µg/g)
BaPeci (µg/g) ILCRs (—)
Wla
Wlb
Wlc
W2a
W2b
W3a
W3b
W4a
W4b
W5a
W5b
9.89
8.23
4.29
1.80
45.42
68.34
101.28
16.54
16.58
28.15
87.41
0.99
0.76
0.32
0.17
1.92
2.12
77.89
0.27
0.74
2.88
7.08
,
1.34.10
1.03.10
4.33.10-4
2.3310-4
,
2.60.10
2.8T 10-3
1.0510-1
3.5910-4
1.0010-3
,
3.8910
,
9.58.10
Springer
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:3646-3652
3649
(average), attaining a maximum level of 28.50 µg/g (Peng
et al. 2011). The contents of the individual PAHs were varied
and clearly depended on the sampling site. Detailed analysis
of the contribution of the individual PAHs indicated the dom-
inance of four -ring compounds in most of the samples studied
(Table S3).
In accordance with the current regulations in Poland (Dz
2002), the content of the individual PAHs: naphthalene, phen-
anthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, chrysene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)fluoranthene and benzo(g,h ,
i )perylene, in protected areas should be lower than 0.10 µg/
g. At the same time, the highest permissible concentration of
the 16 most important PAHs in soils of protected areas cannot
exceed 1.00 µg/g. Similarly, strict norms are in force in the
Czech Republic, Italy, Slovakia and Denmark (Carlon 2007).
The warning level values in force in Germany amount to 3 µg/
g at organic carbon content lower than 8 %, and 10 µg/g at
organic carbon above 10 % (Desaules et al. 2008). The total
concentrations in all of the samples studied considerably
exceed the values permissible in Poland. The soils analysed
should be considered as strongly contaminated and potentially
dangerous for human health.
The high level of PAHs in the soils studied is all the more
notable in view of the fact that they were sampled in an area
with highly limited anthropopressure. In the vicinity of the
sampling sites, there were no active industrial facilities, and
there were no intensively used transport routes. At present,
that area is a national park and a UNESCO biosphere reserve.
We speculate that the only potential source of contamination
of soils with such high PAH levels in the area is the activity
related with biochar production that has been conducted here
for a number of years.
Molecular diagnostic ratios
The literature provides descriptions of more than ten different
molecular diagnostic ratios (Katsoyiannis et al. 2011;
Tobiszewski and Namiesnik 2012). As it was mentioned
earlier, for the purpose of this study, the following MDRs
were chosen: ANT/(ANT+PHE), FLA/(FLA+PYR) and
IcdP/(IcdP+BghiP). The pyrogenic origin of PAHs is indicat-
ed by the values of the ratio ANT/(ANT+PHE) above 0.1 and
FLA/(FLA+PYR) and IcdP/(IcdP+BghiP) higher than 0.4,
with the values of the latter two exceeding the level of 0.5
being indicators of the processes of combustion of coal or
biomass (grass, wood).
As mentioned before, the sole potential source of PAHs in
the area under study is processes related with biochar produc-
tion. To confirm that, MDRs were calculated for particular
samples (Table 2). The values of the ratio ANT/(ANT+PHE)
for the samples studied fall within the range of 0.172-0.807,
exceeding the threshold of 0.1, characteristic for contaminants
of pyrogenic origin, and thus related with biochar production.
Six samples (Wlb, b, W2a, W2b, W4a, W5a, W5b) were
characterised with the ratio FLA/(FLA+PYR) above 0.5, in-
dicating that the source of the PAHs contained in them can be
grass, wood or coal combustion, and for three of the samples
(Wla, a, W 1 c, W4a) that ratio is very close to 0.5 (0.495, 0.492
and 0.495, respectively). All of those values indicate clearly
that the source of PAHs in the area can be processes related
with biochar production.
In the eight samples, the ratio of the content of indeno(c,
d)pyrene and the sum of the contents of indeno(c ,d)pyrene
and benzo(g,h ,i)perylene is higher than 0.5 (Table 2), which
indicates that the PAHs contained in them were formed in the
processes of combustion of biomass and, possibly, coal, while
for sample W4a, it exceeds the value of 0.2 (0.3978) which is
the threshold value for those contaminants that are the pyro-
genic origin. The results obtained for those indicators also
confirm that the primary source of contamination of the soils
studied can be processes related with biochar production.
Samples W3a and W3b are characterised by notably lower
FLA/(FLA+PYR) (0.272 and 0.160) and IcdP/(IcdP+BghiP)
(0.223 and 0.086) ratios than those for the remaining samples
in the series, which suggests a different origin of the PAHs. It
is possible that the soil at the sampling sites was contaminated
with liquid products of pyrolysis, such as creosotes. However,
a simple, direct comparison with the ratio FLA/(FLA+PYR)
for various creosotes, calculated on the basis of literature data
(Melber et al. 2004), yielded negative results. The results of
the calculations of MDR for various creosotes, presented in
Table S4, fall within the range of 0.52-0.80, and thus, they are
considerably higher that the values for samples W3a and W3b
(Table 2). Also, the values of the ratio ANT/(ANT+PHE) for
those samples (0.8017 and 0.7758) are outside of the range of
values of that parameter calculated for creosotes (0.039-
0.327) (Table S4). It appears, therefore, that the site from
which samples W3a and W3b were collected could have been
accidentally contaminated with fuel or oils from vehicles used
for serving the kilns and for the transport of wood and biochar.
The results of calculations of MDRs for the soil samples
studied are presented in Fig. 1 in the form of the so-called
crossplots. That analysis indicates that the source of contam-
ination of soils at the sites described is the processes of
biomass combustion. Only samples W3a and W3b appear to
be contaminated with hydrocarbons of petrogenic origin.
Those results were additionally juxtaposed with MDRs calcu-
lated for various biochars on the basis of literature data (Fig. 2,
Table 2). Out of 13 values of the ratio ANT/(ANT+PHE), nine
fall within the range of 0.10-0.28, while six values of the ratio
FLA/(FLA+PYR) fall in the range of 0.42-0.59, indicating
considerable similarity to the soils studied, which strongly
supports our thesis concerning the source of the contaminants.
Taking even several MDRs as the basis for the classifica-
tion (identification) of a source may lead to misleading con-
clusions. Katsoyiannis et al. (2011) demonstrated than in
Springer
3650
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:3646-3652
Table 2 Calculated FLA/(FLA+
PYR) and ANT/(ANT+PHE) ra-
tios in examined soil samples and
various biochars
— no pyrene content
Sample name
ANT/(ANT+PHE)
FLA(FLA+PYR) Literature
Wla
Wlb
Wlc
W2a
W2b
W3a
W3b
W4a
W4b
W5a
W5b
grass 300 °C
grass 400 °C
grass 500 °C
grass 600 °C
wood 300 °C
wood 400 °C
wood 500 °C
wood 600 °C
biochar (median)
biochar 1
biochar 2
biochar 3
biochar 4
BC -2
BC -W
BC -O
MC -M
0.2396
0.1969
0.2139
0.2373
0.2361
0.8072
0.7758
0.2096
0.1820
0.1974
0.1719
0.0943
0.2803
0.1964
0.0773
0.1006
0.1238
0.0683
0.1923
0.1571
0.1668
0.1705
0.1533
0.1625
0.2198
0.2105
0.4951
0.5303
0.4916
0.5568
0.5478
0.2724
0.1596
0.4959
0.5564
0.5255
0.5468
0.2293
0.4263
0.4918
0.3038
0.3889
0.3715
0.3302
0.3667
0.1875
0.4627
0.5304
0.5840
0.5495
0.3230
0.1781
Present work
Keiluweit et al. (2012)
Freddo et al. (2012)
Hilber et al. (2012)
Oleszczuk et al. (2013)
many cases, the application of MDRs does not yield coherent
results, as between the emitter and the receiver PAHs may
undergo chemical transformations (interfering with the MDRs
described above), and also PAHs may reach the receiver
arriving from various sources.
Biochar production processes as the source of PAHs found
in the samples studied are indicated, however, not only by the
MDRs discussed above but also by the lack of any reports of
forest fires in the area of soil sampling, by the considerable
distance from intensively used transport routes and other
Fig. 1 Molecular diagnostic
ratios for identification of PAH
pollution sources
ANT f (ANT + PHE)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
sources of PAHs, the immediate vicinity of kilns and the very
high level of those compounds in the samples.
Incremental lifetime cancer risks
High levels of carcinogenic substances in soils may create a
considerable threat to ecosystems and to human health, espe-
cially with relation to people involved in the traditional pro-
duction of biochar. The most exposed individuals are the
"biochar men", working in the production of biochar
0
k-
` pyrogenic source
peifogenic source
_ 1 .1.-1 L 1
2 a2
LI'
1
4-1
1 L 1 Y 1 1 J.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
FLA/ (FLA + PYR)
FLA / (FLA + PYP)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0M ,
0.8 1.0 0.0 0,2 !x,4. 0,
IcdP / (MP + BOP)
to
Springer
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:3646-3652
3651
1.0
0.8
ri
z
i~ 0.4
z
4
0.6
01
0.0
_•
O
pyrogenic source
#
-f-
ii :g
this work
(KeKu veil -2012)
(Oieszczuk-2'013)
(Hiiber-2012)
0
+ -
•
J
r
petrogeoic source
+
+
.,_1 1 I L, 1
i
. . 1
1
1 - L e .
•
I , .
. 1 . , . I
j_y__
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
FLA / (FLA + PYR)
Fig. 2 Crossplot for MDRs presented in Table 2
0.6 0,7
0.8
throughout the season. A parameter frequently used for the
description of hazard to human health is the so-called ILCRs.
This unitless factor represents the increased probability of
occurrence of cancer due to prolonged exposure to a toxic
agent, usually taking into consideration three exposure path-
ways: ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact.
Following the literature data (Man et al. 2013; New York
State Department of Health 2007), the ILCRs applied for the
estimation of cancer risk are here classified as low (<10-6),
medium (10-6-10-4), moderate (10-4-10-3), high (10-3-10-1)
and very high (>10-1). The sums of the calculated ILCRs are
presented in Table 1, and the full compilation (ILCRsingestion,
ILCRSinhalation, ILCRSde a1) is shown in Table S5 (supple-
mental material, page 6).
The estimated ILCRs fall within the range of 2.33 10-4
(sampleW2a)-1.05.10 1 (sample W3b). Only in the case of
three samples (Wlc, c, W2a, W4a) cancer risk can be considered
to be moderate. As many as seven of the soils studied posed a
high cancer risk: W 1 a, Wlb, b, W2b, W3a, W4b, W5a and W5b
(ILCRs from 1.00.1 0-3 to 9.58.10-3), and soil W3b presented
a very high risk (ILCR=1.05.10-1).
Occupational cancer risk resulting from contact with soils
contaminated with PAHs was estimated by Man et. (2013).
Those authors analysed soils from 55 locations in Hong Kong,
under various uses (e.g. car dismantling workshops, open
burning sites, e -waste open burning sites, etc.). The ILCRs
values estimated by those authors fell within the range of
1.90.10-7-4.53 while the risk level was estimated as
very low, low and moderate.. The potential risk created by
PAHs in soils within the area of Beijing was estimated by
Peng et. al. (2011). The ILCRs calculated by those authors did
not exceed the limit of 1.24.10-4, and one of the highest
values (1.24.10-3) was measured in the vicinity of a coking
plant in that city. The results obtained in this study are higher
by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude, which is due primarily to the
higher concentrations of PAHs. Therefore, the risk formally
attributable to the calculated values of ILCRs should be con-
sidered as high and very high.
Similar to the results obtained in references Man et al.
(2013), Peng et al. (2011), we also observed a relation be-
tween the dermal and ingestion and the inhalation risks, which
were lower by 4 orders of magnitude (ILCRsingestion and
ILCRsdernial»ILCRsinhalation) (Table S5).
It should be emphasised that in reality, workers working
with kilns have contact not only with contaminated soil but
also with the biochar itself and with the fme particles formed
during its production. As mentioned earlier, due to its me-
chanical properties, it is a much more dangerous source of
dusts than the soil itself As our analysis also does not take into
account the dusts formed from biochars, the risk described
should be considered as underestimated, and thus, the risk of
disease among the workers may be considerably higher.
Conclusions
The study demonstrated that soils in the immediate vicinity of
kilns are strongly contaminated with PAHs. The concentra-
tions of PAHs are considerably higher than the permissible
limits laid down in the regulations in force in many countries.
Both the analysed MDRs and the features of the situation of
the sampling sites indicate potentially that the source of those
contaminants is the production of biochar in that area. In
accordance with the estimated values of ILCRs, the cancer
risk resulting from contact with the contaminated soils should
be considered at least high. It should be strongly emphasised
that the level of the risk may be underestimated. It should also
be noted that apart from the cancer risk to humans, there is a
great hazard to animals in that region. The fauna of the region
includes many protected species that should be granted special
protection. Those sites may, therefore, create serious hazard to
the ecosystems and to human health.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by a grant from Switzer-
land through the Swiss Contribution to the enlarged European Union.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the
source are credited.
References
Brandli RC, Bucheli TD, Ammann S, Desaules A, Keller A, Blum F,
Stahel WA (2008) Critical evaluation of PAH source apportionment
tools using data from the Swiss soil monitoring network. J Environ
Monit 10:1278-1286
Bucheli TD, Blum F, Desaules A, Gustafsson 0 (2004) Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, black carbon, and molecular markers in
soils of Switzerland. Chemosphere 56:1061-1076
Carlon C (ed) (2007) Derivation methods of soil screening values in
Europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards
Springer
3652 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:3646-3652
harmonization. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra
[WWW Document]. URL http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_
archive/eusoils docs/other/EUR22805.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2013
De La Tone -Roche RJ, Lee W -Y, Campos -Diaz SI (2009) Soil -borne
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in El Paso, Texas: analysis of a
potential problem in the United States/Mexico border region. J
Hazard Mater 163:946-958
Desaules A, Ammann S, Blum F, Brandli RC, Bucheli TD, Keller A
(2008) PAH and PCB in soils of Switzerland status and critical
review. J Environ Monit 10:1265-1277
Dz U (2002) Rozporzfdzenie Ministra rodowiska z 9 wrzesnia w
sprawie standardow jakosci gleby oraz standardow jakosci ziemi
Freddo A, Cai C, Reid BJ (2012) Environmental contextualisation of
potential toxic elements and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
biochar. Environ Pollut 171:18-24
Gaylor DW, Culp SJ, Goldstein LS, Beland FA (2000) Cancer risk
estimation for mixtures of coal tars and benzo(a)pyrene. Risk Anal
20:81-86
Hilber I, Blum F, Leifeld J, Schmidt HP, Bucheli TD (2012) Quantitative
determination of PAHs in biochar: a prerequisite to ensure its quality
and safe application. J Agric Food Chem 60:3042-3050
Katsoyiannis A, Sweetman AJ, Jones KC (2011) PAH molecular diag-
nostic ratios applied to atmospheric sources: a critical evaluation
using two decades of source inventory and air concentration data
from the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45:8897-8906
Keiluweit M, Kleber M, Sparrow MA, Simoneit BRT, Prahl FG (2012)
Solvent -extractable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in biochar:
influence of pyrolysis temperature and feedstock. Environ Sci
Technol 46:9333-9341
Koelmans AA, Jonker MTO, Cornelissen G, Bucheli TD, Van Noort
PCM, Gustafsson O (2006) Black carbon: the reverse of its dark
side. Chemosphere 63:365-377
Lehmann J (2007) A handful of carbon. Nature 447:143-144
Liu Y, Chen L, Zhao J, Wei Y, Pan Z, Meng X -Z, Huang Q, Li W (2010)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the surface soil of Shanghai,
China: concentrations, distribution and sources. Org Geochem 41:
355-362
Maliszewska-Kordybach B (1996) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in agricultural soils in Poland: preliminary proposals for criteria
to evaluate the level of soil contamination. Appl Geochem 11:
121-127
Maliszewska-Kordybach B, Smreczak B, Klimkowicz-Pawlas A, Terelak
H (2008) Monitoring of the total content of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) in arable soils in Poland. Chemosphere 73:
12841291
Maliszewska-Kordybach B, Smreczak B, Klimkowicz-Pawlas A
(2009) Effects of anthropopressure and soil properties on the
accumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the upper
layer of soils in selected regions of Poland. Appl Geochem 24:
1918-1926
Man YB, Kang Y, Wang HS, Lau W, Li H, Sun XL, Giesy JP, Chow KL,
Wong MH (2013) Cancer risk assessments of Hong Kong soils
contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J Hazard
Mater 261:770-776
Marusenko Y, Herckes P, Hall SJ (2011) Distribution of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in soils of an and urban ecosystem. Water
Air Soil Pollut 219:473-487
Masiol M, Formenton G, Pasqualetto A,. Pavoni B (2013) Seasonal trends
and spatial variations of PM10-bounded polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons in Veneto Region, Northeast Italy. Atmos Environ 79:811-821
Melber C, Kielhom J, Mangelsdorf I (2004) Coal tar and creosote. WHO,
Geneva [WWW Document]. URL http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/
10665/42943. Accessed 9 Oct 2013
New York State Department of Health (2007) Hopewell Precision Area
Contamination: Appendix C - NYS DOH Procedure for Evaluating
Potential Health Risks for Contaminants of Concern [WWW
Document]. URL http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/
investigations/hopewell/appendc.htm (accessed 10.10.13)
Nisbet ICT, LaGoy PK (1992) Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Regul Toxicol
Pharmacol 16:290-300
Oleszczuk P, Baran S (2004) Application of solid -phase extraction to
determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sewage
sludge extracts. J Hazard Mater 113:237-245
Oleszczuk P, Pranagal J (2007) Influence of agricultural land use and
management on the contents of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
selected silty soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 184:195-205
Oleszczuk P, Josko I, Kusmierz M (2013) Biochar properties regarding to
contaminants content and ecotoxicological assessment. J Hazard
Mater 260:375-382
Peng C, Chen W, Liao X, Wang M, Ouyang Z, Jiao W, Bai Y
(2011) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban soils of
Beijing: status, sources, distribution and potential risk.
Environ Pollut 159:802-808
Petry T, Schmid P, Schlatter C (1996). The use of toxic equivalency factors
in assessing occupational and environmental health risk associated
with exposure to airborne mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons (PAHs). Chemosphere 32:639 648
Placha D, Raclayska H, Matysek D, Riimmeli MH (2009) The polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in soils in the Region of
Valasske Mezirici, the Czech Republic. Geochem Trans 10:12
Sims RC, Overcash MR (1983) Fate of polynuclear aromatic compounds
(PNAs) in soil -plant systems. Residue Reviews 88:1-66
Tobiszewski M, Namiesnik J (2012) PAH diagnostic ratios for the iden-
tification ofpollution emission sources. Environ Pollut 162:110-119
US EPA (2011) Exposure factors handbook, 2011 edition (final). US EPA
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington D.C.
[WWW document]. URL http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252. Accessed 9 Oct 2013
US EPA, OSWER (1991) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS) part B [WWW document]. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/
riskassessment/ragsb/index.htm. Accessed 9 Oct 2013
US EPA, OSWER (2009) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS), volume I: human health evaluation manual (part E, sup-
plemental guidance for dermal risk .assessment) interim [WWW
document]. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragse/index.
htr. Accessed 9 Oct 2013
Wang Z, Chen J, Yang P, Qiao X, Tian F (2007) Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in Dalian soils: distribution and toxicity assessment. J
Environ Monit 9:199-204
Wang W, Massey Simonich SL, Xue M, Zhao J, Zhang N, Wang R, Cao
J, Tao S (2010) Concentrations, sources and spatial distribution of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils from Beijing, Tianjin and
surrounding areas, North China. Environ Pollut 158:1245-1251
Springer
Diana Aungst
From: Jeri Yarbrough <yarbroughacres@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 12:30 PM
To: Diana Aungst
Subject: Bio char
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Here are some pictures of the wildlife located on my property. Also some photos of how close this will be to my home
and horses. Thank you .
Jeri Yarbrough
1
n
r_
r_
•
1 5 e b 2023
By Ellie Mulder Leonard
Jordan Gaspard knew that working at Biochar Now, the
Berthoud -based company where she serves as managing
director, could be a "dirty job" — but she never expected
to aopear on the Discovery Channel show "Dirty Job ",
alongside host Mike Rowe.
:When Mike was here, he said, 'This is probab'y one of
the dirUest jobs I've ever done,"' said Gaspard, who
received both her bachelor's degree and VBA from the
OSU College of Business.
Diana Aungst
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Gina Michel <gmichel9013@gmail.com>
Monday, September 23, 2024 11:59 AM
Diana Aungst
Opposing Biochar project case #USR24-0019.
Flag for follow up
Flagged
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Weld County Commissioner and Weld County Planner,
I am writing this letter to express our strong opposition to the proposed development of the NGL owned
facility to include Biochar project case #USR24-0019.
Our family farming business has been established for over 30 years now. Here we raise crops and cattle.
With the proposed 24/7 kiln -based operation that emits air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution,
tractor trailer traffic, and potential fire risks, will severely impact our farm operations.
- Air pollution can harm wildlife in two main ways.
• It affects the quality of the environment or habitat in which they live
• It affects the availability and quality of the food supply
- Noise pollution, or sound pollution, is the propagation of noise or sound with ranging impacts on the
activity of human or animal life, most of which are harmful to a degree. The source of outdoor noise
worldwide is mainly caused by machines, transport and propagation systems.
- Light pollution, or artificial light at night, is the excessive or poor use of artificial outdoor light, and it
disrupts the natural patterns of wildlife, contributes to the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere, disrupts human sleep, and obscures the stars in the night sky.
- Tractor -trailers damage ecosystems, disturbing wildlife and natural habitats. Road and traffic pollution
affects the ecosystem, making healthy living difficult. When a commercial vehicle accident dumps toxic
materials into the environment, the harmful effects of the spill can be almost immediate. Many
hazardous chemicals impact air, soil, and water quality and can cause long-lasting damage, depending
on the type of chemical.
I feel it is important to note since road 6 curves around part of our lake, also where the proposed site is,
there are at least 3 wrecks per year where drivers tend to not notice the road curves and go straight
through our fence.
Furthermore, we have two takes that are less than 500 feet from this facility and are the only water
source for our several head of cattle, horses, as well as alfalfa and corn crops. Any runoff from the
1
Biochar kiln site has the high potential to contaminate our water sources. We have some of our cattle
herd that graze on the west side of this facility and use the lake water that runs under road 6 as their
water source. Any run off with contaminants from the Biochar kiln site will impact the health of our
animals and our livelihood.
The small red buildings are located on the proposed Biochar kiln site
In addition, we have two lakes that are next to this proposed facility which house bald eagle's nests in our
cottonwood trees for over 30 years now. Bald eagles are recognized as the country's national symbol, a
distinction it has held since 1782 and are on the endangered species list. Air pollution, noise pollution,
light pollution, water contamination, and high fire risk, will jeopardize the Bald Eagles livelihood.
2
Two Bald eagles that just left their nests in our cottonwood trees along the lake.
We are wanting our voices heard in this matter and to document our strong opposition and our request
for the committee to deny the special use permit Case Number USR24-0019 in our community with
many homes and animals that require a healthy environment to survive.
Thank you for all that you do and for your time to read my letter!
Warmly,
Gina Michel, Dave Sack and Joe Sack
3
.r . is Re n ing&r • 464 I I u r i l er C i * Bri. hton., CO t n01: lib 303-6594665
66
September 15 2024
a fi US- 24-0[119
N .rri —NCI_ Water Solutions
1 a.rr, ri Oniz this letter to voice my concern with ibis pwjccl. We have been operating across the
siTedt from the proposed site for over 30 Saar&.. My biggest concern Rh h this project is the
inim id (ne; ativc) impact on the wi ldi i I e in areas in I.%.0 courseof i� e year we will see
Canada Geese, . Mallard, MI iaeen. CiarividrelL American Shoveler, Green and Blue v.inid, * I e*
Pintail, Mourning Doves, Coot, Snow Geese as well as other migratory brr l h,. My biggest concern
is these art all r_mgr toffy birds that stop to rest and Teruel in. (ab rya&& on their migration South_
These birds look to this farm in getmunch needed relaxation and rest before they continue their
1j Rmiey_ Habitat t.at is getting men away from the w i 1:.I i to at an alarming rate in this arm. Not only
art i he mip-atory species directly ikcted by the loss of habitat but also the birds and animals
th t cal I, this area honks (White -tall deer. Mule Dieer, Bald I '.4.-dit). There is a Bald Tale nest
right across the street from this proposed site. These a bird's art very w rel ve during their nesting
seasons and they will be directly affected by the, primed construction and operation of this site.
Habitat is disappearing ut y rapid rate and I feelthat :hero is a m uch Nu tri h1,t and safe spot for
this Procx)sue projcet that isn't right next 10 a lifCbilg w ld lih sanctuary.
Slit [water 0 ul raters LLC N talent
i �rav i s Ihunger
Colleen Kay O'Neil, Ed.D.
1865 County Road 31, Fort Lupton, CO 80621
cell 970.302.9517
email colleenkoneil@gmail.com
Subject: Concerns Regarding Biochar's Special Use Permit, Case Number USR24-0019
Dear Weld County Commissioners and Weld County Planner,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed NGL biochar project case number USR24-
0019, located near 14512 Co Rd 6, Fort Lupton, CO 80621. I live about 2500 feet from this location and
own competitive rodeo horses and animals.
As you may recall, this land was previously purchased by NGL for the purpose of establishing injection
well sites. That as an underground operation that was approved by the Weld County Commissioners at
the time. Biochar is not that. It is a 24/7 kiln -based operation that emits air pollution, noise, traffic and
poses fire risks in an already too dry area of Weld County. This type of business in our agricultural
neighborhood is deeply concerning due to the potential for light pollution, environmental contamination,
and negative impacts on our livestock.
The proposed biochar facility could pose significant risks to our us and to our animals, including:
• Air pollution: Particulate matter and harmful gases emitted by the kiln could irritate human and
animals' respiratory systems and cause health problems. Biochar is known to produce black soot
in the atmosphere which can cause harm to those who are near it.
• Noise pollution: The noise from the kiln operation could disturb animals, causing stress, reduced
productivity, and difficulty in sleeping or resting.
• Light pollution: Excessive light pollution could disrupt animals' natural sleep -wake cycles,
leading to stress and health problems.
• Water contamination: Runoff from the kiln site could contaminate nearby water sources used by
animals for drinking or grazing.
• Fire risk: The kiln operation could pose a fire risk that could directly harm animals if it spreads to
nearby pastures or habitats.
The image of the proposed kiln factory speaks for itself. Such an industrial
facility is incompatible with our residential and agricultural zoned areas,
particularly in close proximity to heavily traveled roads and homes with
livestock.
Biochar has a place in the ecoclimate and is a sustainable resource.
However, having a 24 -hour kiln operation in a neighborhood with many homes and animals is not
acceptable.
I am requesting that you deny the special use permit Case Number USR24-0019.
I urge you to carefully consider the negative impacts of this project on both human health and the well-
being of our animals. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I appreciate the work you do as
Commissioners representing the best interests of your constituents.
Sincerely,
Colleen O'Neil, Ed.D.
Sharon A. O'Neil
14952 County Road 6, Fort Lupton, CO 80621
cell 303.710.0560
email sherrieoneil@gmail.com
S ubject: Concerns Regarding Biochar's Special Use Permit, Case Number USR24-0019
Dear Weld County Commissioners and Weld County Planner,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed NGL biochar project case number USR24-
0019, located near 14512 Co Rd 6, Fort Lupton, CO 80621. I live about 2500 feet from this location at the
corner of roads 6 and 31. What and where is the feedstock coming from and how will it be delivered to the
facility? Roads 6 and 31 are already overloaded with traffic so this is a critical situation to the health,
safety and wellbeing of the people of this community.
As you may recall, this land was previously purchased by NGL for the purpose of establishing injection
well sites. That as an underground operation that was approved by the Weld County Commissioners at
the time. Biochar is not that. It is a 24/7 kiln -based operation that emits air pollution, noise, traffic and
poses fire risks in an already too dry area of Weld County. This type of business in our agricultural
neighborhood is deeply concerning due to the potential for light pollution, environmental contamination,
and negative impacts on our livestock.
The proposed biochar facility could pose significant risks to our us and to our animals, including:
• Air pollution: Particulate matter and harmful gases emitted by the kiln could irritate human and
animals' respiratory systems and cause health problems. Biochar is known to produce black soot
in the atmosphere which can cause harm to those who are near it.
• Noise pollution: The noise from the kiln operation could disturb animals, causing stress, reduced
productivity, and difficulty in sleeping or resting.
• Light pollution: Excessive light pollution could disrupt animals' natural sleep -wake cycles,
leading to stress and health problems.
• Water contamination: Runoff from the kiln site could contaminate nearby water sources used by
animals for drinking or grazing.
• Fire risk: The kiln operation could pose a fire risk that could directly harm animals if it spreads to
nearby pastures or habitats.
The image of the proposed kiln factory speaks for itself. Such an industrial
facility is incompatible with our residential and agricultural zoned areas,
particularly in close proximity to heavily traveled roads and homes with
livestock.
Biochar has a place in the ecoclimate and is a sustainable resource.
However, having a 24 -hour kiln operation in a neighborhood with many homes and animals is not
acceptable.
I am requesting that you deny the special use permit Case Number USR24-0019.
I urge you to carefully consider the negative impacts of this project on both human health and the well-
being of our animals. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I appreciate the work you do as
Commissioners representing the best interests of your constituents.
Sincerely,
S haron A O'Neil
Diana Aungst
From: Rachel Brown <elbrown1366@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:15 AM
To: Diana Aungst
Subject NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC USR Case # USR24-0019
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
b
z
.O
S
EXHIBIT
6
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Diana,
I am emailing you to protest the NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC USR request(Case # USR24-0019). This facility would
decrease my quality of life greatly! It would be so awful to have to drive by this ugly smoke emitting place every time I
left and came back to my home!! The pollution this facility would admit is also very very concerning! It could affect not
only my animal's health but my health and the health of my family! It could also affect the health of the bird life in the
area. There are eagles, herons, egrets, pelicans, several species of owls, and several species of ducks that live right by
this proposed facility. This in no way seems like ORGANIC composting!! I am surprised that Weld county would ever
consider this type of business organic composting and that it fits into an agricultural business! I also think it is immoral
for NGL and this biochar company to try to put this business so close to people's homes just because they want to buy
cheaper agricultural land and pay less property taxes! For these reasons this facility would greatly impact my property
values and I am very much against this USR being passed! Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Rachel Brown
14510 County Rd 6
Fort Lupton, CO
1
Diana Aungst
From: Jeri Yarbrough <yarbroughacres@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 7:21 PM
To: Diana Aungst <daungst@weld.gov>
Subject: Biochar data
ID
5
EXHIBIT
7
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Diana ,
Tony Hale the neighbor to the east of me sent me this data, can you add to the file for the county.
Thank you
Jeri Yarbrough
Sustainable Restoration of Soil Functionality in PTE Affected
Environments: Biochar Impact on Soil Chemistry,
Microbiology, Biochemistry, and Plant Growth
Abstract
Biochar can be useful for the functional recovery of soils contaminated with potentially toxic
elements (PTEs), even if its effectiveness is variable and sometimes limited, and conflicting results
have been recently reported. To shed some light on this regard, softwood -derived biochar was
added at 2.5 (2.5-Bio) and 5.0% w/ w (5.0-Bio) rates to an acidic (pH 5.74) soil contaminated by Cd
(28 mg kg -1), Pb (10,625 mg kg -1), and Zn (3407 mg kg -1). Biochar addition increased soil pH,
available P and CEC, and reduced labile Cd, Pb, and Zn (e.g., by 27, 37, and 46% in 5.0-Bio vs. the
unamended soil). The addition of biochar did not change the number of total heterotrophic bacteria,
actinomycetes, and fungi, while it reduced the number of Pseudomonas spp. and soil microbial
biomass. Dehydrogenase activity was reduced in amended soils (e.g., by ---60 and 75% in 2.5- and
5.0-Bio, respectively), while in the same soils, urease increased by 48 and 78%. Approximately 165
rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and the Biolog community -level physiological profile highlighted a
significant biochar impact (especially at a 5% rate) on soil bacterial diversity. Tomato (but not
triticale) yield increased in the amended soils, especially in 2.5-Bio. This biochar rate was also the
most effective at reducing Cd and Pb concentrations in shoots. Overall, these results demonstrate
that 2.5% (but not 5.0%) biochar can be useful to restore the soil chemical fertility of PTE -polluted
soils with limited (or null) impact on soil microbial and biochemical parameters.
Montevecchio dismissed minins site iSardinia, Italy)
PTE-palluted soil
25% biochar
5.0% bloc lair
Graphical Abstract
PIE -polluted
raining soil
Ph 10,625 mg kg'
Cd 28 rng
2n 3,407 rig Mg'
Cd
Pb Zn
pH 5,74
Reduction at Pb, Cd and Zn ire sail
Improvement of soil fertility parameters
Increased soil t.IR€ activity
Enhanced plant yield (L. escuientum)
Increased bacterial diversity (at 5.0% rate)
Reduced Cd and Pb in shoots (at 2.5% rate)
Decreased abundance of Pseudornonas sr
Declined soil microbial C (at 5.0% rate,
Reduced sail QIlG activity
Decreased plant yield (triticale) (at 5.0%
1. Introduction
Soil pollution by potentially toxic elements (PTE; e.g., Pb, Zn, Cd, As, and Sb) is of growing concern
worldwide due to its critical effects on soil biota, including plants, and its potential impact on public
health [1,2,3]. Soils polluted by PTE cannot be used for agricultural purposes (due to the health
risks mentioned above), not contributing to the provision of food or feed, and limiting the
achievement of many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), e.g., zero hunger
(SDG 2), no poverty (SDG 1), and decent work and economic growth (SDG 8)
(https://sdgs.un.org/goals, accessed on 20 August 2023). Sustainable remediation of these soils is
therefore urgently needed to limit PTE spread in the environment and attenuate their negative
consequences for health and society. In this sense, remediation interventions can be fundamental to
converting marginal lands (i.e., PTE -polluted areas) into productive ones, e.g., by cultivating high -
income non-food crops.
Adding organic amendments to PTE -polluted soils is one of the sustainable remediation options to
increase soil fertility, reduce labile PTE (i.e., potentially bioavailable fractions), and reduce potential
health risks [4,5]. In this context, biochar, i.e., the solid material deriving from the pyrolysis of
different feedstock biomasses, can have relevant implications [6]. In particular, its large surface
area, high pH, presence of different functional groups, relevant porosity, surface charge, cation
exchange capacity (CEC), and abundance of recalcitrant C are responsible for effective
immobilization of labile PTE in soil through a variety of mechanisms such as precipitation, specific
and non-specific adsorption, and diffusion within pores [7,8,9,10,11]. Such PTE -immobilizing
capacities are greatly influenced by the feedstock nature and pyrolysis conditions, among others
[12]. A recent meta -analysis showed that biochar's effectiveness in reducing PTE bioavailability in
polluted soils depended mainly on soil pH (after amendment), texture, aging time, and the pyrolysis
temperature of biochar [13]. In the same study, other important drivers regulating the bioavailability
of PTE were identified, such as PTE species in soil, biochar feedstock, and application rate. This
implies that a detailed characterization of each biochar x soil combination is needed to develop
tailored solutions for soil recovery. This is essentially supported by the scientific literature of the
last 10 years, which, however, has not provided so far any conclusive solutions and/or well-defined
guidelines for biochar use in different soil pollution scenarios (e.g., [14]). For instance, while
softwood -derived biochar was effective at immobilizing As and Cu in an aqueous solution [8],
Beesley at al. [15,16] reported increased mobilization of As and Cu after soil amendment with
hardwood biochar. Moreover, while a large literature reports on the PTE -immobilization capacities
of biochar (e.g., [17,18,19]), an increase of Cu, Cd, Ni, and Zn in soil solution after biochar
amendment was reported by El-Naggar et al. [20]. Additionally, similar biochars added to different
soils in comparable amounts and incubation times showed varying effectiveness of PTE
immobilization, e.g., Cd immobilization by maize straw biochar (pyrolyzed at ~500 °C) in two alkaline
soils reached 24% in one case and 71% in the other [12]. Again, this supports the view that a
customized, or case -by -case, assessment of biochar effectiveness is required and that knowledge
gaps on biochar use for the recovery of PTE -polluted soils still exist.
Mother aspect requiring more research efforts concerns the biochar impact on the soil microbial
community and its functioning. This is an important point, as plant growth and health greatly rely on
belowground microbial communities [21,22]. Although many studies reported a positive impact of
biochar on soil microbial abundance, diversity, and activity (e.g., [23] and references therein), others
highlighted contrasting results [24,25], making it impossible to draw general conclusions on this
point. For instance, Anders et al. [26] showed that soil microbial biomass did not change after the
addition of different biochars, while Andres et al. [27] reported a significant reduction. In addition,
Wang et al. [28] reported a reduction in the relative abundance of fungi and bacteria when high rates
of maize straw biochar were applied to the soil. Decreased soil basal respiration was noticed by
Domene et al. [29] after corn stover biochar addition at the 0.2-7.0% rate, while reduced microbial
activity (i.e., N mineralization) was reported by Dempster at al. [30] with increasing biochar from
eucalyptus. Finally, the addition of biochar (from oak and hickory hardwood sawdust) also resulted
in a null influence on soil microbial community structure [31], while many other critical effects of
biochar on soil biota have been discussed elsewhere [25,32]. For instance, biochar can reduce
nutrient bioavailability, thereby limiting plant growth and agricultural yield (e.g., [19,33,34]). This
possibility, which mainly depends on feedstock and amendment rate, should be carefully evaluated
before biochar employment in soil recovery intervention, as plant growth (PTE phytostabilizing
species in particular) can be essential to reducing labile PTE and their spread into the environment
[18,35,36].
The aim of this study was therefore to gain new knowledge on the effectiveness of softwood biochar
in the functional recovery of a PTE -polluted soil from the dismissed Montevecchio mine in Sardinia,
where Zn and Pb were extracted from galena (PbS) and sphalerite (Zn,Fe)S for more than one
century [37]. In particular, PTE mobility was evaluated through sequential extraction in the polluted
soil and in the same soil amended with two biochar rates. Soil microbial and biochemical parameters
(e.g., soil microbial biomass, number of culturable microorganisms, community -level physiological
profile, enzyme activities, amplicon sequencing analysis) were also addressed in the same soils.
Finally, the biochar impact on soil fertility, plant growth, and PTE uptake was considered using
different plant species, i.e., triticale and tomato.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Soil Origin, Biochar, and Mesocosms Set Up
The soil used in this study was sampled in the vicinity of the dismissed Montevecchio mine (39° 33'
35" N; 8° 25' 29" E) in Southwestern Sardinia (Italy). The mine was exploited for more than a century
(1848-1991) to extract Pb and Zn from galena and sphalerite [37]. The mining area (i.e.,
Montevecchio-Ingurtosu) includes about 150 dumps, accounting for approx. 8 Mm3 of waste dumps
and tailings. In addition, approx. 7 Mm3 of tailings are dispersed in a large area around the mining
site [38]. Due to limited management and securing of dumps and tailings, the area is characterized
by significant PTE pollution consequent to the weathering of metal sulfides. Different soil samples
(upper 30 cm) were collected near the mining site, pooled in the laboratory (150 kg in total), and
sieved to <2 mm before mesocosms were set up. The soil was acidic (pH 5.74) and had a sandy loam
texture (USDA classification: 28% coarse sand, 41.5% fine sand, 15.8% silt, 14.7 clay; [39]).
The softwood-biochar used in this study (from elder, beech, and poplar pyrolyzed at 700 °C) was
kindly provided by Ronda S.p.A. (Zane, Italy). A detailed physico-chemical characterization of this
biochar was previously described by Pinna et al. [8] and reported in Table 51. Briefly, the biochar
was alkaline (pH 9.3) with a pHYzc = 5.0, had approx. 60% of total C, 85 mg kg -1 of available P, and
a CEC of 19 cmol(+) kg -1. The content of total N and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) was low, i.e.,
0.3% and 0.02 mg kg -1 respectively. Biochar acidity was mainly due to phenolic groups (2.1
cmol(+) kg -1) rather than carboxylic ones (0.14 cmol(+) kg -1), while Pb, Cd, and Zn were not detected.
Triplicate mesocosms (approx. 15 kg each) were set up in plastic containers for control soil (C soil),
soil amended with 2.5% biochar (2.5-Bio), and soil amended with 5.0% biochar (5.0-Bio). Such
biochar rates were established based on previous studies carried out on soils with a PTE pollution
status comparable to the one investigated here (e.g., [18,40D. Before addition to soil, biochar was
sieved to <2 mm. Mesocosms were left to equilibrate for 3 months at 20-22 °C and a constant
humidity level (i.e., 40% of their water holding capacity). During this time, they were mixed weekly
to favor soil -amendment contact.
2.2. Soil Chemical Analyses
After the contact period, physico-chemical analyses were carried out on duplicate soil samples from
each mesocosm. Soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were determined in 1:2.5 and 1:5 soil -to -
water suspensions; available P and cation exchange capacity (CEC) were determined using the Olsen
and the BaCl2-triethanolamine methods, respectively, according to Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 84 [41]. Soil
organic C and total N were determined using a Leco CHN628 CHN analyzer and a Soil LCRVI Leco
part no. 502-697 as a calibration sample. DOC was quantified following Manzano et al. [19], while
pseudo -total PTE (i.e., Pb, Cd, and Zn) was determined after microwave mineralization of soil
samples (as previously reported) using a Perkin Elmer AAnalyst 400 HGA 900 atomic adsorption
spectrometer (FAAS) for Zn and a Perkin Elmer AAnalyst 400 equipped with an HGA 900 graphite
furnace (GFAAS) for Pb and Cd. The NIST-SRVI 2711 -certified reference soil was included for
quality assurance.
2.3. Mobility of Pb, Cd, and Zn in Soil
The mobility of Pb, Cd, and Zn in each mesocosm was evaluated (after the contact period) through
the sequential extraction procedure described by Basta and Gradwohl [42]. Readily soluble and
exchangeable fractions (labile PTE) were quantified after the extraction of duplicate soil samples (1
g each) from each mesocosm with 0.5 M Ca(NO8)2 solution, acid -soluble fractions, and those weakly
complexed by soil colloids were quantified after extraction with 1 M NaOAc (pH 5); finally, surface-
complexed and precipitated PTE fractions were quantified after extraction with Na2EDTA (pH 7).
Residual PTE (i.e., very insoluble and occluded fractions) were quantified after microwave soil
mineralization as described for pseudo -total PTE. After each extraction step, the soil suspensions
were centrifuged (3500 rpm for 10 min), and the PTE concentration in the filtered supernatant (0.45
pm cellulose acetate filters) was determined using FAAS and GFAAS as already reported.
2.4. Culturable Microorganisms and Soil Microbial Biomass
After the contact period, the number of total culturable heterotrophic bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes,
and Pseudomonas spp. was determined in duplicate soil samples (10 g) from each mesocosm as
previously described [2]. Briefly, soil samples were serially 10 -fold diluted using a 0.89% NaCl
solution, and aliquots (100 uL) of the resulting suspensions were used to inoculate Petri dishes
containing the following microbiological growth media: 1:10 Tryptone Soy Agar (for heterotrophic
bacteria; Microbiol, Cagliari, Italy); Rose Bengal Chloramphenicol Agar (for fungi; Biolife, Monza,
Italy); Actinomycetes Isolation Agar Glycerol (for actinomycetes; Difco, Milan, Italy); Pseudomonas
Selective Agar (for Pseudomonas spp.; Microbiol, Cagliari, Italy). Colony counts were carried out
after 48 h of incubation at 28 °C for heterotrophic bacteria and fungi and after 72 h at 28 °C for
actinomycetes and Pseudomonas spp. Microbial counts were expressed as Loglo colony -forming
units (CFU g-1 soil).
Soil microbial biomass (SMB) was estimated in each mesocosm using the chloroform -fumigation
extraction method, as reported by Nunan et al. [43]. In brief, duplicate soil samples (40 g) from each
mesocosm were divided into two 20 g aliquots: one was immediately extracted with 80 mL of a 0.5
M K2504 solution after shaking (60 min) and filtering with Whatman No. 42 filter paper; the other
was incubated for 24 h under vacuum with ethanol -free chloroform as described by ISO 14240-2
[44] and subsequently extracted as described for the unfumigated samples. Afterwards, the increase
in UV readings at 280 nm (A280) of the fumigated vs. unfumigated extracts was used to estimate soil
microbial biomass C, as previously reported [40]. The values of soil microbial biomass C were
expressed as pg C kg -1 soil.
2.5. Molecular Analysis of the Soil Bacterial Community through 16S rRNA Gene Amplicon
Sequencing
2.5.1. Bioinformatics
After the contact time, the PowerSoil DNA isolation kit (Mo Bio Laboratories, Carlsbad, CA, USA)
was used to extract DNA from soil samples (-500 mg) of each mesocosm. DNA extracts were
provided to the Integrated Microbiome Resource sequencing center (Dalhousie University, Halifax,
NS, Canada), and amplicon sequencing was performed according to their Illumina MiSeq 2x300bp
in-house protocol for amplicons generated with the V4 -V5 515FB (5'-
GTGYCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA-3')/926R(5'- CCGYCAATTYMTTTRAGTTT-3') primers [45,46]. The
retrieved sequences were subjected to quality assessment and control with the dada2 v1.24.0 [47]
pipeline using the R software v4.1.3 [48], and ASV matrices were obtained as follows. Sequence
reads were trimmed at the first instance of very low bases (Phred Q values of 2) while screened
from the read error -prone end towards the start. The remaining parts were rejected if the expected
error rates were at most 2 or if the remaining read parts were shorter than 150 bp. Moreover, read -
pairs where the reconstruction of the amplicon of origin via merging (allowing no mismatches) was
not possible were removed. Finally, chimeric, non-specific, or off -target amplicons (non -
prokaryotic, unclassified, mitochondrial, or chloroplast) were also rejected from downstream
analysis. Classification of the ASVs into taxa was performed with the Bayesian Classifier [49]
version of dada2 against the Silva v138 database using an 80% bootstrap cutoff value [50] . The
retrieved phylogenetic markers were also analyzed for their functional potential with PICRUSt2 [51]
using the default parameters.
2.5.2. Biostatistics
The retrieved ASV and predicted microbial function matrices were used for a series of statistical
analysis tasks. a -diversity indices representing members or functions of the studied microbial
communities of various dominance levels were calculated with the Vegan v2.6-4 [52] and the
Entropart v1.6-11 [53] R packages. Specifically, the observed richness (representing all
communities), the Shannon index (representing the, at least, low -dominance community members),
the Inverse Simpson index (representing the, at least, intermediate -dominance community
members), and the Fisher's a index (representing the highly dominant community members) were
calculated. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERVIANOVA) and canonical analysis
were performed with the vegan package of R to assess the effect of the biochar treatment on the
microbial communities and their functions. Analysis of variance with the Tukey's post hoc test or
their non -parametric equivalents (Kruskal-Wallis and the Wilcoxon rank sum analysis) was used for
comparing a -diversity indices, while analysis for differentially abundant taxa between treatments
was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis (k test -factor levels, with k > 2) and the Wilcoxon rank sum
(pairwise) analysis.
2.6. Soil Enzyme Activities and Community Level Physiological Profile
Dehydrogenase (DHG) and urease (URE) were quantified (after the incubation period) in duplicate
soil samples from each mesocosm. Both enzyme activities were determined using the protocols
described by Alef and Nannipieri [54]. Briefly, the DHG activity was determined colorimetrically
(A480) as triphenyl formazan released after incubation of soil samples (10 g at 30 °C for 24 h) with
triphenyl tetrazolium chloride, while URE was determined as ammonia released (A690) after
incubation of soil samples (5 g at 37 °C for 2 h) with urea [54].
The Biolog community -level physiological profile (CLPP) was obtained for soil microbial
communities extracted from the different mesocosms, as reported by Diquattro et al. [2]. In
particular, soil microbial communities from the different mesocosms were inoculated in 96 -well
Biolog (microtiter) Ecoplates (Biolog Inc., Hayward, CA, USA) containing a total of 31 C sources of
environmental relevance (one in each well) and a blank well replicated three times. After recording
the A590 readings for each well (every 24 h for 5 days), using a Biolog VIicroStationTM reader (Biolog
Inc., Hayward, CA, USA), the following CLPP indexes were determined, i.e., the Average Well Color
Development (AWCD), the Shannon -Weaver index (H), and the Richness (S) value.
The AWCD, or the potential catabolic activity of the different soil microbial communities, was
calculated as in Equation (1):
AWCD=>31 i=1(Ri—C)/31AWCD=>i=131Ri—C/31 (1)
where Ri is the absorbance value (A590) of each response well, C is the absorbance value of the
control well, and 31 is the number of C substrates in the plate [52].
H; indicating the catabolic functional diversity (substrate use) of the different soil microbial
communities, was calculated as in Equation (2):
H'=-> (pi (Log pi))H'=-> pi Log pi (2)
where pi is the absorbance ratio of each of the 31 substrates to the total absorbance value of the
plate [55].
S was calculated as the number of C substrates used (A590 > 0.15) by the different soil microbial
communities [56].
Standardized A590 values, i.e., [(RI C)/AWCD of the plate], were also subject to Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) using the variance/covariance matrix [56] to allow for a more
straightforward data interpretation of multidimensional data.
2.7. Plant Growth and PTE Uptake
After the incubation time, the soil from each mesocosm was used to fill 2 pots (approx. 2 kg of soil
each), which were planted with triticale (x Triticosecale Wittm. cv. Trimour) and tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum L. cv. Rio Grande) seeds. These species, characterized by different
physiologies and taxonomically distant, were chosen as bioindicator organisms to fully evaluate the
remediation effectiveness of biochar and not to test the possibility of growing food or feeding crops
in the polluted soil. Ten and five plants of triticale and tomato were grown, respectively, in each pot
(without fertilization) for 2 months at 20-22 °C. At harvest, plants were removed from pots, and
roots and shoots were carefully washed. All plant heights were recorded, shoots and roots were
separated, and their dry weight was determined after 10 days in the oven at 55 °C. To quantify PTE
uptake, root and shoot tissues were mineralized using microwave (ultraWave, Milestone, Sorisole,
Italy) and a digestion solution containing 2 mL of suprapure H2O2 and 4 mL of a mixture of HNO3 and
ultrapure H2O (ratio 1:1). After mineralization, Pb, Cd, and Zn were determined using FAAS for Zn
and GFAAS for Pb and Cd. Peach leaves (NIST-SRM 1547) were used as standard reference material
for quality assurance.
2.8. Data Analysis
Soil chemical, biochemical, and microbiological data are reported in tables and figures as mean
values ± standard errors (SE). Data were analyzed to investigate differences due to the treatments
applied (i.e., biochar at two different rates). All traits were evaluated for normality and
homoscedasticity using the Shapiro and Bartlett tests, respectively. The variables that passed both
tests were analyzed through ANOVA, whereas those that did not were analyzed through the Kruskal-
Wallis test (p < 0.05). In Table S2, the statistical analysis adopted for each of the investigated traits
was reported. All statistical analyses were carried out in R 4.2.1 [48].
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Influence of Biochar on the Chemical Characteristics of the Polluted Soil
The main physico-chemical characteristics of the polluted soil used in this study are reported
in Table 1. This latter soil had a sandy loam texture with an acidic pH and a low content of organic
matter, total N, and DOC. However, available P and GEC values were high, but pseudo -total
concentrations of Pb, Cd, and Zn were all abundantly exceeding the threshold values established by
the Italian law for potentially contaminated soils devoted to commercial and/or industrial use (i.e.,
1000, 15, and 1500 mg kg -1 for Pb, Cd, and Zn, respectively; [57]) or to agriculture (i.e., 100, 5, and
300 mg kg -1 for Pb, Cd, and Zn, respectively; [58]). Overall, these data suggest limited soil fertility,
with N being the most limiting factor for agricultural yields [59], and with low pH and high PTE
content adding more stress for plant establishment and growth, as well as for the soil microbial
community [42,56,60]. The low DOC content also suggests some additional constraints on microbial
growth and abundance in the studied soil.
Table 1. Selected physico-chemical characteristics of the contaminated (C soil) and biochar-
amended soils (2.5-Bio and 5.0-Bio). Mean values ± SE followed by different letters within
a row denote statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 1. Selected physico-chemical characteristics of the contaminated (C soil) and biochar-
amended soils (2.5-Bio and 5.0-Bio). Mean values ± SE followed by different letters within a
row denote statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Physico-Chemical Characteristics
C Soil
2.5-Bio 5.0-Bio
Texture
pH
CE (pS cm -1)
Organic matter (g kg -1)
Total N (g kg -1)
P Olsen (mg kg -1)
CEC (cmol(+) kg -1)
DOC (mg kg -1)
Pb (mg kg -1)
Cd (mg kg -1)
Zn (mg kg -1)
Sandy loam
5.74 ± 0.02 a
376±9a
32.67 ± 0.58 a
1.00 ± 0.0 a
31.53 ± 1.22 a
24.36 ± 0.02 a
13.79 ± 0.43 b
10.625 ± 2058 a
28.3 ± 0.4 a
3407 ± 140 a
OD
6.35 ± 0.01 b
325±5b
34.67 ± 0.58 b
1.00 ± 0.0 a
32.43 ± 0.98 a
24.55 ± 0.08 b
12.51 ± 0.26 a
10.238 ± 372 a
27.2 ± 1.05 a
3291 ± 241 a
6.58 ± 0.01 C
333+4b
36.33±0.580
0.91 ± 0.0 b
35.73 ± 0.47 b
25.15 ± 0.42 C
12.04 ±0.12 a
10.064 ± 141 a
27.1 ± 1.07 a
3323 ± 120 a
Biochar addition increased soil pH, which approached neutrality in 5.0-Bio (Table 1). This was due
to biochar alkalinity (Table S1), and it is expected to have a positive impact on both soil physico-
chemical properties, e.g., through the reduction of soluble Al`s+ and PTE, and soil microbial activities
[61]. Also, the increase in available P (especially in 5.0-Bio) and CEC recorded in amended soils is
deemed positive, as these latter are important soil fertility parameters. The biochar ability to
increase soil CEC was previously reported and attributed to the presence of oxygen -containing
functional groups on biochar surfaces (e.g., carboxylic and phenolic) able to retain cations [12].
Moreover, biochar's natural oxidation and/or its incubation with soil can further increase the
formation of oxygenated groups [62], likely explaining the CEC values of amended soils. The high
amount of available P in biochar (i.e., 85 mg kg -1 soil; Table S1) can finally explain its increase in
the amended soils (especially in 5.0-Bio; Table 1).
3.2. Influence of Biochar on the Mobility of Pb, Cd and Zn in Soil
Both rates of biochar had a great influence on PTE mobility, significantly reducing the concentration
of labile (readily soluble and exchangeable) Pb, Cd, and Zn in the amended soils (Figure 1). For
instance, labile Pb [extracted with Ca(NO3)2] reduced by approx. 76% in 5.0-Bio, while in the same
soil, Cd and Zn reduced up to 27 and 37%, respectively (Figure 1). Weakly complexed Pb (extracted
with NaOAc) reduced up to 46% in Bio-5.0, while Cd and Zn increased or remained unchanged,
respectively (Figure 1). After biochar addition, the surface complexed and precipitated PTE
(extracted with Na2EDTA) reduced in the case of Pb (up to —5%) and Zn (up to —26%) but remained
unchanged for Cd. Very insoluble and occluded fractions (residual PTE) remained unaffected for Pb
and Cd, while significantly increasing for Zn (up to —45%).
Ph rrta%eel (nag kg1 :sofa)
80
60
o Ca(Najh D MID&
1
• NagilYTA ■ Residual
i
C' sell 2.5 Bio 5.10-Bik
Cd released (rug k -I U
20 -
15 -
10
5
e woo
1750 -
1500
7 1250
1440
• 5.00
▪ 75O
250
U
a
(` Soil
a
a
2 5-Tld
C soil
2,5 -Kith
Figure 1. Concentrations of Pb, Cd, and Zn extracted from contaminated control (C soil) and
amended soils (2.5-Bio and 5.0-Bio) using the sequential extraction procedure. Color bars
refer to the different extraction solutions. For each PTE and within the same extraction
solution, different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).
During the three-month contact period, a PTE redistribution clearly occurred in amended soils
(especially in 5.0-Bio), leading to a shift from more mobile and potentially bioavailable fractions
[i.e., labile PTE extracted with Ca(NO3)2] to less mobile and poorly bioavailable ones (e.g., those
extracted with Na2EDTA and/or residual). This was previously reported by other studies (e.g., [63D
)
and is of outmost importance from a remediation perspective since labile PTE are the most impactful
on plants and soil (micro)organisms [4,18,40]. Such biochar-driven PTE redistribution towards less
bioavailable fractions can be due to a variety of mechanisms, such as: (i) Pb, Cd, and Zn partial
precipitation as oxides or hydroxides following the significant pH increase in the amended soils [7];
(ii) the formation of insoluble PTE -phosphates or PTE -carbonates (e.g., the biochar used contained
substantial available phosphate, Table 1; [8]); (iii) the formation of strong complexes between PTE
and oxygenated functional groups of biochar (e.g., phenolic and carboxylic, Table 1; [64] ); (iv) PTE
surface adsorption and diffusion within biochar pores [7,14].
3.3. Influence of Biochar on Culturable Microorganisms and Soil Microbial Biomass
The size of the targeted culturable soil microbial communities was mostly unaffected by biochar
addition (Figure 2). The number of total heterotrophic bacteria, actinomycetes, and fungi did not
change after soil amendment, while that of Pseudomonas spp. was reduced by approx. 10 -fold
(Figure 2). This is interesting as in the very few studies focusing on the effect of biochar on soil
culturable microorganisms, increased microbial numbers were commonly reported after amendment
(e.g., [65,66,67]). Our results can be explained by the DOC values recorded in the amended and
unamended soils: DOC represents an important source of C for soil microorganisms [68], and its
marginal reduction in the amended soils, also reported by Manzano et al. [19] and explained by
adsorption phenomena, did not allow an increase of culturable microorganisms, while it reduced the
number of Pseudomonas spp. [69]. However, PAHs accumulated in biochar during pyrolysis could
have contributed to such adverse effects against Pseudomonas spp. [24]. Both DOC reduction and
PAH accumulation in amended soils could also explain the approx. 60% reduction of SMB recorded
in 5.0-Bio (Figure 3). Similar results were reported by Andres et al. [27] after adding maize biochar
to Mediterranean vineyards and by Dempster et al. [30] after using eucalyptus biochar in wheat
cultivation. While the impact of the highest amount of soft -wood biochar was clear, at least
vs. Pseudomonas spp. and SMB, its relevance for soil functioning is hardly predictable, although
microbial biomass is recognized to play a relevant role in soil ecosystem functioning and productivity
[70].
Total .helcrotropbk+c bacteria
AC ri 110 wenn
I0
7,4)
44 6.0
;mw 40
40 10
i5 z0
LO
t
ora
Q
8.0
7,0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.14
1.0
01)
C scM
2.t-ffo
Log CET Etl, soil
7.0
6.0
5,0
4.0
3.0
.0
1.0
C soil
t soL1
5 Vie
45.0_Olilo
Figure 2. Number of culturable microorganisms in contaminated control (C soil) and amended
soils (2.5-Bio and 5.0-Bio). For each microbial group, different letters indicate significant
differences between treatments (p < 0.05).
µg SIV -C" kg -1 sail
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
C soil
2.5-Bio
5.0=Bio
Figure 3. Soil microbial biomass C (SMB-C) in contaminated (C soil) and amended soils (2.5-
Bio or 5.0-Bio). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p <
0.05).
3.4. Influence of Bio char on the Structure of Soil Bacterial Community
ASV matrices were generated with dada2 as described in the materials and methods. Out of a total
of 261,009 read pairs, a final amount of 47,618 high -quality sequences passed the quality control
process and were used in the analysis (Table 53).
Significant differences between the control soil and 5.0-Bio were observed in a -diversity indices,
i.e., the observed richness S, the Shannon, and the inverse Simpson (Figure 4A). In the case of the
Fisher's a index, which is more representative of the highly dominant ASVs, no significant
differences resulted from the tests performed. Twelve phyla dominated the samples, with
Acidobacteriae, a-Proteobacteria, Bacteroidia, y-Proteobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, and
Vicinamibacteria being the most dominant among those (Figure 4B). Principal coordinates analysis
(PCoA) showed a partial separation of the treatments, mostly due to the 5% biochar treatment (Figure
4C). Differential abundance analysis showed that 5 ASVs were mainly responsible for these
structural differences, belonging to Bacteroidota, Proteobacteria, and Acidobacteriota (Figure 4D).
A
Observed S Shang Irw. Simpson
500
4X
cp.
C
CI 0
r
I'
a
CsI
3'1'1
7
6
5
300
Ei3 iso
a
too
fi
42 -
Alai [Mk.
02
D
we.
40
Fishes a too
A SY000076 CAI t4
p a).on
C iI[IIl
2_.5 -Bias
5-G11i
—0 a
A 9'C •:!iJO jr +bat+ r (PM eolbettecial
6.035
C song rob
2,5-WWob
5-BW,
I
7`
o
S
()out kihi Or,
CPS
ASO
■ .. ..
traciwg
Ems .
Sts
xismatsamin
Eta
Wackettida
a ctirectsita
Ulloplosilten
ItattOzcadotant,
CLiitninintligotiaria
ICinmancrisiacear
Nitviercagitebtrait
z a
:i is
Uttixports
is aprrwrisnasenes
MBir pi *
• Aitcapracarae
Phyi igeb iiN.
In Atli j
St
■
Plintatactrat
IS
. $00010,10W
• ,-
u-asects.
fiAletratol14 8iit tlitataitoten ilitadoboolteretil
pUMS
c soil lib
.. -� Dab
Pit U It it *4 '.W 410
.0
AIV003257 p. i10
P 44
II"I+
24-810 I b
S -E
41
p 004
C SOW
lot 401 Ifs 4st dtt
Figure 4. Microbial community data analysis outputs for contaminated (C soil) and amended
soils (2.5-Bio or 5.0-Bio). (A) a -diversity boxplots with ANOVA results and post hoc
pairwise Tukey's analysis (a 0.05). (B) Barplots of the dominant taxa with taxonomy
resolution as low as family level. (C) Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) scatter plot
generated using the Bray -Curtis dissimilarity, with the explained variance provided at each
axis. (D) Barplots of the five ASVs showing differential abundance between the treatments
(different letters indicate significant differences according to Kruskal and Wilcoxon rank sum
tests for a of 0.05). * p < 0.05.
These data indicated a positive influence of biochar, when used at the highest rate, on soil bacterial
diversity. This was previously reported by other authors (e.g., [71,72]) and can be attributed to the
highest reduction of labile PTE and the highest increase of soil pH, which occurred in 5.0-Bio. Both
factors likely contributed to reducing the environmental pressure faced by microbial communities in
the polluted soil, allowing for the appearance (and/or increase) of rare or intermediate -dominant
bacterial taxa [4,71,73]. The significant abundance of Lysobacter in 5.0-Bio could also be relevant
from an environmental perspective, as members of this genus produce antibiotics and can be useful
in the control of plant diseases [74].
Statistical analysis of the inferred functions according to Picrust2 output was also performed (Figure
5). The results showed no significant differences in the a -diversity of the functions (Figure 5A).
Major identified functional classes included Biosynthesis, Degradation/Utilization/Assimilation,
Generation of Precursor Metabolite and Energy, and Macromolecule Modification (Figure 5B). PCoA
showed a separation between the control soil and 2.5- and 5.0-Bio, with this latter treatment being
more distant (Figure 5C). Pathways showing significant differences were those of the TCA cycle
(Helicobacter type) and L-methionine, thiazole, and thiamine diphosphate biosynthesis, with all of
them being reduced at an increasing biochar application rate. These data suggest that the observed
changes in the bacterial community structure were likely paralleled by functional changes, which
could have a role in adapting to changed environmental conditions (e.g., lower labile PTE, increased
pH, reduced N and DOC content; Table 1).
C
r
a
Oesrrwd S
T
1
-01
U
t
at.
Shannon
4
C soil
2.'amo
Sao
ASll,1 i 1 d`w1
hi . 5.
Inv, Simpson
3-11
12
B
FLOWa
T
1
tePh
Co
y 401
fr
aDarraw& ragodds*as a.ILS
ayaw Kan
Cnl a a
2-5-840 Jtv
aura ■a
sitatawdePttterre: Its 4.414%11.1424~09
41 reds *Al
i.
Ilia, -
Sea 1'
t 1' 7 I I
i-
u 412 u• a2 a+ ill NI
1
1114
11/41 144 OE'
Weis Amapa a ditti
sal
t_54k, Ins ft
Ger
Imam
Ibulen
I- Ames ad tam
�-
krio
. .tPpm
yr€
'o�ff
� i a
can-[aa Ode' .-- w loofahs
. *ow IndUps isaafi
DIOS ad Ovid luddev
INAmta Web PUSS*
diaadiS
idol Sao
ilIWIltalimilifligeak
Lt too wadi mutt'
Oriman'Oupsian
1 SOW duo too
: dos Imo limbo
��. NOM asilodip Colas.
RI
0441•1 Pen*. dideaS
dimenlismoworlidS tar 1st
I
FlP
Li tarps
2:
sist Whin.
'tl' Wig IM. 44i'
Mr( isi<11:F4.24Wirialla'aft POI 44NWM S
taffeta*" offliiinaolkageibierpolbie-
R#1.-I i
c SON
2L'IND ' b
u.i* u e u s II II
S
a
Figure 5. Microbial function analysis outputs according to Picrust 2 for contaminated (C soil)
and amended soils (2.5-Bio or 5.0-Bio). (A) a -diversity boxplots of functions with ANOVA
results and post hoc pairwise Tukey's analysis (a > 0.05; no statistically significant
differences were identified). (B) Barplots of the dominant functions. (C) Principal coordinates
analysis (PCoA) scatter plot generated using the Bray -Curtis dissimilarity, with the explained
variance provided at each axis. (D) Barplots of the four differentially enriched pathways
showing differences between the treatments (different letters indicate significant differences
according to Kruskal and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for a of 0.05).
3.5. Influence of Biochar on Soil Enzyme Activities and Community Level Physiological Profile
DHG activity in soil is generally reduced according to the amount of biochar added, while the opposite
was found for URE. In particular, DHG reduced by approx. 60 and 75% in 2.5-Bio and 5.0-Bio,
respectively, compared to control soil, while in the same soils, URE increased by 48 and 78% (Figure
6). DHG data seemed to indicate a negative biochar effect on soil microbial activity, and this was not
obvious since a reduction of labile PTE (which occurred in amended soils; Figure 1) is commonly
expected to increase DHG (e.g., [4,17,56]). As mentioned for culturable Pseudomonas spp., this
could be due to a reduction of readily usable C sources in DOC (which occurred in amende
d
soils; Table 1) and/or to a direct toxic effect of biochar on soil microorganisms [24,25,32]. PAHs,
but also other biotoxic compounds adsorbed and/or accumulated on biochar surfaces, e.g.,
environmentally persistent free radicals and/or catechol, can be responsible for microbial toxicity
phenomena and the consequent reduction of DHG and SMB [32]. Interestingly, the DHG decrease
recorded in amended soils could be seen as a confirmation of the reduction of the TCA pathway
highlighted by Picrust2 (Figure 5C).
18
1,6
14 -
12 -
10
8
6
4
2
0
C son
L;.-Bio
5.Q-E10
D16 25
a
0 0cet
15
Wa
5
0
URE
a
9 9
C sail ?.5-fisr
5.0-liIu
Figure 6. Dehydrogenase (DHG) and urease (URE) activities in contaminated (C soil) and
amended soils (2.5-Bio or 5.0-Bio). For each enzyme activity, different letters indicate
significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).
The increased URE activity observed in the amended soils, together with the reduction of total N
content (Table 1), was likely indicative of a stimulation of urea hydrolysis due to biochar rather than
an increased microbial content in amended soils (i.e., SMB reduced in 2.5- and 5.0-Bio; Figure 3).
Such accelerated rate of URE activity in the presence of biochar was recently reported by Zhao et
al. [75] and could be partly responsible for the N reduction observed in the amended soils (especially
5.0-Bio; Table 1). The increased URE observed in the amended soils can also be due to an increased
microbial synthesis of the enzyme stimulated by a more limited N availability in these soils [76],
which in turn can be explained by NO3-N and NH4-N adsorption by biochar, as previously observed
[19].
The Biolog CLPP did not show significant differences between control and amended soils according
to the AWCD, H', and Richness values (Figure S1). However, when C source consumption was
analyzed by PCA, clear differences appeared. PCA, which accounted for approx. 80% of the total
variance (in PC1 and PC2), highlighted substantial differences in the potential catabolic activity of
the microbial communities (Figure 7). PC1 (approx. 55% of the total variance) mainly separated the
different microbial communities and was correlated with the catabolism of the following substrates:
P-methyl-D-glucoside (r= 0.76), D-xylose (r= —0.99), 2-hydroxy benzoic acid (r = 0.78), L-
arginine (r = —0.79), and L-threonine (r = 0.77); while PC2 (approx. 24% of the total variance) was
mainly correlated with the usage of a-cyclodextrin (r = 0.76), 4-hydroxy benzoic acid (r = 0.78) and
a-ketobutyric acid (r = 0.79). These results support a relevant impact of biochar (and of the rate
added) on the structure of the soil microbial community, as also highlighted by the molecular analysis
(Figure 4 and Figure 5) and by recent studies (e.g., [23,24,28]). Overall, this kind of impact was
somewhat expected given the profound changes that biochar exerted on soil physico-chemical
properties and nutrient dynamics (e.g., this study and Li et al. [7]). The reduction of labile PTE in
the amended soils could also have been co -responsible for the observed changes, e.g., by decreasing
the abundance of PTE -resistant strains in treated soils and favoring the appearance of new ones
with different catabolic capacities, as previously reported [4,5].
PTE -resistant strains in treated soils and favoring the appearance of new ones with different
catabolic capacities, as previously reported [4,5].
1,6
1.2
?.5-Bio
Q
0.8'
I
t
0.4
-3.0
-2.0 -1.0
0
0
1.0
2.0 3.0
fJr� ``
0.1
Si
-0 s
-1.2
PC 1
55.5000)
Figure 7. PCA plot of standardized C source utilization data of microbial communities
extracted from contaminated (C soil) and amended soils (2.5-Bio or 5.0-Bio).
3.6. Influence of Blochar on Plant Growth and PTE Uptake
Plant growth was tested to gain a wider view of the role of biochar in restoring soil fertility in PTE -
polluted soils. Interestingly, biochar had a different impact on the growth of triticale and tomato. The
height of the former species, together with the respective shoot dry weight, were unaffected by
biochar, while substantial increases were recorded for tomato (Figure S2 and Figure 8). The height
of tomato plants increased by approx. 2.5- and 2.1 -fold for 2.5-Bio and 5.0-Bio, respectively
(Figure S2), while shoot dry weight increased by approx. 8.0- and 4.5 -fold in the same soils (Figure
8). Moreover, the higher biochar rate had a negative effect on triticale root dry weight, while both
rates had a positive effect on the weight of tomato roots, with 2.5-Bio revealing the most effective
treatment (Figure 8).
60
.-.
so
co 110
or E
o 30
bo
ni 20
aie t 10 0
a
c so
a
40
8
X30
tID
4-U
3
lU
C soil
i _
a
Tritiale root
2,:5=Bio
Tomato root
5rOaBka
C soil 2.5-81c SM-Bio
2 -
175 -
I 150 -'
r 125
1no -4r
� 3
fa)
3 sIJ
0
200
Ts 175
Tic 150
125
Y[1n
am 75
ezt
3 5.13
ll
In
Trhtlkale shoot
1
a
C soil
C soil
2.5-8its
5,0 -Rio
I
a
I
2.5-Bio 5-0-Bio
Tomato shoot
t
Figure 8. Root and shoot dry weight of triticale and tomato plants grown in contaminated (C
soil) and amended soils (2.5-Bio or 5.0-Bio). For each parameter, different letters indicate
significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).
Overall, these data highlight the importance of using different plant species to understand the biochar
potentials in the recovery of soil fertility in PTE -polluted soils. Our results suggest a quite different
tolerance/sensitivity of the two plants towards labile PTE (as evident from the comparison of plant
growth in control soil) and a different adaptation to soil chemical characteristics, e.g., pH and total
N. Tomato yield increased dramatically when labile PTE was reduced in the amended soils, while
triticale did not (Figure 8), likely suggesting a higher PTE tolerance of the latter species that allowed
substantial plant growth in the control soil. This is probably why triticale, likewise other grass
species, has been used in different phytoremediation studies (e.g., [77,78,79,80]). Furthermore, S.
lycoperslcum is very sensitive to soil acidity (and soluble Ala+ ), and the pH increase recorded in
2.5- and 5.0-Bio could have contributed to improving its growth in the amended soils [81]. Finally,
the yield reduction observed for both plant species in 5.0-Bio compared to 2.5-Bio was likely due
to excessive nutrient adsorption by biochar, which reduced plant growth, and/or to other biochar
toxicity effects previously reported [24,25]. In the first case, combining biochar with fertilizers
and/or using biochar enriched with nutrients could mitigate the nutrient depletion effects arising
from excessive biochar rates [24]; in the second case, phytotoxic effects can be avoided using lower
biochar amounts, e.g., ≤2.5% [25].
Also, biochar influence on PTE uptake differed depending on the plant species: the concentration of
Pb and Cd in triticale roots increased in the amended soils (up to 36 and 100%, respectively, vs.
control), while that of Zn was reduced (up to 76% vs. control; Table 2). These results could be
explained by a higher and/or altered root activity in the amended soils (e.g., increased secretion of
siderophore, organic acids, and other root exudates), which led to enhanced Pb and Cd mobilization
from the soil and their subsequent uptake [79], as well as a reduced Zn uptake (which was also
correlated with the reduction of labile Zn in the amended soils; Figure 1).
Table 2. PTE uptake (mg kg -1, mean ± SE) by triticale and tomato plants grown in contaminated (C
soil) and biochar-amended soils (2.5-Bio or 5-Bio). Mean values ± SE, followed by different letters
within each column, denote statistically significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). ND
was not detected because of the limited availability of root biomass.
es
Table 2. PTE uptake (mg kg -1, mean ± SE) by triticale and tomato plants grown in contaminated (C
soil) and biochar-amended soils (2.5-Bio or 5-Bio). Mean values ± SE, followed by different letters
within each column, denote statistically significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05)_ ND
was not detected because of the limited availability of root biomass.
Triticale
C soil
2.5-Bio
5.0-Bio
C soil
2.5-Bio
5.0-Bio
Pb Uptake (mg kg -1)
Shoots
39.2 ± 0.3 b
38.3 ± 0.5 a
53.3 ± 0.2 c
Roots
434.8 ± 21.5 a
593.7 ± 2.9 b
456.8 ± 25.3 ab
Pb uptake (mg kg -1)
Shoots
514.7 ± 22.8 C
89.2 ± 7.4 a
115.5 ± 9.2 b
Roots
ND
695.4 ± 20.3 b
616.8 ± 17.0 a
Cd Uptake (mg kg -1) Zn Uptake (mg kg -1)
Shoots
5.7±0.1 b
5.1 ± 0.1 a
7.9 ± 0.1 c
Roots
30.3 ± 1.1 a
61.6 ± 1.1 c
52.6 ± 0.7 b
Tomato
Cd uptake (mg kg -1)
Shoots
17.7 + 0.6 b
15.3 ± 1.1 a
24.9 ±0.2 c
Shoots
631.1 ± 25.8 a
733.2 ± 5.0 c
683.4 ± 10.1 b
Roots
1596.3 ± 8.3 C
1307.4 ± 19.7 b
928.0 ± 6.7 a
Zn uptake (mg kg -1)
Roots Shoots
ND 2843.1 ± 22.3 c
133.5±2.1 b 879.1 ±86.5b
Roots
ND
4859.2 ± 28.3 b
104.2±1.7a 680.3±9.5a 3101.2±28.4a
With regards to tomato, PTE uptake by roots was reduced in 5.0-Bio vs. 2.5-Bio (Table 2) in
agreement with labile PTE in these soils (Figure 1; control root yield was not enough to quantify
PTE uptake). Differently from triticale, these data support a clear positive influence of biochar on
the fertility recovery of PTE -polluted soils, as highlighted elsewhere [5,18].
In both triticale and tomato plants, PTE was largely accumulated in the roots rather than the shoots
(Table 2). Overall, biochar impact on PTE uptake by shoots was more limited in the case of triticale
and, for both plants, confirmed a better effectiveness of 2.5-Bio rather than 5.0-Bio in reducing Cd
and Pb concentrations in the aerial part.
4. Conclusions
The results from this study showed that softwood biochar added at 2.5 and 5.0% rates was able to
significantly reduce labile (and potentially bioavailable) Pb, Cd, and Zn in a PTE -polluted mining soil
and to increase selected fertility parameters (e.g., soil pH, available P, and GEC). This is relevant
from a practical viewpoint since it suggests reduced ecotoxicological effects in amended soils as
well as increased functionality. However, soil microbiological and biochemical data did not support
this view, with the exception of bacterial a -diversity (which increased in 5.0-Bio vs. control) and
urease activity (which increased in both 2.5- and 5.0-Bio vs. control). These results raise some
questions about the overall biochar impact on soil functionality, or at least the ideal amount that
should be added to any soil. In this regard, 2.5-Bio appeared to be the most effective treatment able
to combine soil chemical restoration with a limited impact on soil microorganisms (e.g.,
on Pseudomonas ssp.) and biochemical activity (DHG was repressed but URE was stimulated by 2.5-
Bio). This was supported by plant growth data, which showed reduced tomato and triticale yields for
5.0-Bio vs. 2.5-Bio, likely due to excessive nutrient adsorption by biochar. Overall, our results
showed that chemical data alone cannot be sufficient to predict the effect of biochar on soil
functionality, while the measurement of several (micro)biological proxies and the use of different
bioindicators, such as different plant species, can be helpful. Given the significant role of plants in
shaping rhizosphere microbial communities and their activities (e.g., through their root exudates),
further studies should focus on the impact of endemic plants on the microbial abundance and
diversity in biochar-amended polluted soils.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded
at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/soilsystems7040096/s1, Figure 51: AWCD, H', and
Richness values of contaminated (C soil) and amended soils (2.5-Bio or 5.0-Bio); Figure S2: height
of triticale and tomato plants grown in contaminated (C soil) and amended soils (2.5-Bio or 5.0-Bio);
Table Si: selected chemical properties of the biochar used in this study; Table S2: statistical analysis
adopted for each of the investigated traits; Table S3: quality control (QC) of the received sequence
data.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, P.C. and G.G.; methodology, M.G., P.C., M.V.P., S.D., A.C., N.P.M., S.V. and G.G;
formal analysis, M.G, M.V.P., A.C., N.P.M. and S.V.; investigation, P.C., M.V.P., S.D. and G.G.;
resources, G.G.; data curation, M.G., M.V.P., S.D., A.C., N.P.M. and S.V.; writinr original draft
preparation, G.G.; writinr review and editing, P.C. and S.V. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported by the Agritech National Research Center and received funding from
the European Union Next-GenerationEU (PIANO NAZIONALE DI RIPRESA E RESILIENZA (PNRR)
MISSIONE 4 COMPONENTE 2, INVESTIMENTO 1.4 D.D. 1032, 17 June 2022, CN00000022). This
manuscript reflects only the authors'views and opinions; neither the European Union nor the
European Commission can be considered responsible for them.
James D. Stewardson
13918 County Road 4
Brighton, Colorado 80603-5730
14 October 2024
Weld County Planning & Zoning
Ms. Diane Aungst, Planner
P. O. Box 758
1402 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Record USR24-0019; Public Comment & Objection; Proposed Biochar Production Facility on
Weld County Road 6
Dear Ms. Aungst,
SUMMARY
Please consider my and my family's request to deny approval of the above referenced Use by Special
Review application from Biochar Now LLC, and please insure that the WC Commissioners are
apprised of our objections to the proposed project.
BACKGROUND
My wife and I own a 175 acre farm along WCR 4, one mile south of the proposed facility; we have
been residents of said farm since 1985. We, as Weld County residents, count on our County
Government to foster & help maintain the quality, and especially the safety, of our community's
environment.
The ro osed location of the Biochar facility is in an established agricultural area, consisting of high -
value value homes and farms that produce high quality agricultural products, such as animal feed &
livestock. In reviewing the available application documents from Biochar Now, we are persuaded that
the Biochar production facility would degrade the community environment in multiple ways,
proposed
would provide no obvious benefit to said community, the County or the State, and that approval of the
USR Application that has been presented for its construction should therefore be denied.
1. Environmental noise levels
The proposed facility would clearly emit assorted sounds at levels and durations significantly
higher than those historically present in the surrounding community. This issue has obviously
been given considerable attention by the applicant, as they have commissioned an extensive
Facility Operational Noise Modeling Report. The Report itself seems to contain some
inconsistencies internally as well as with other of the Application documents. On page 3 of the
Noise Modeling Report the following statements are made: "The operation will occur only
during the daytime. Therefore, the operational noise will be assessed against the Weld County
Daytime noise limit of 55 dBA". These statements seem to be at odds with other statements in
the Report and other Application documents which do not suggest restricting the operation of
p the proposed facility to daytime hours. Additionally, in Paragraph 5. On Page 17 of the Noise
p p Report referencing the Screener Operation, the "75dBA noise limit at all receptors" that is
referenced is very loud, and if a noise level of this magnitude were to be present for up to 15
minutes of every hour, as referenced elsewhere in the Report, such noise would be extremely
annoying to humans and animals in the area. We suggest that if such sound levels and durations
were to occur at night no human with their house windows open and no outside animal within
half a mile of the source would be able to sleep normally. As time & location sound
monitoring is easily accomplished with currently available monitoring equipment, the absence
of a sound monitoring protocol or a remedial action procedure in the Application should result
in rejection of said Application.
2. Negative effect of increased access -road traffic
We note that no study of the effects of additional truck vehicle traffic on WCR 6 has been
submitted by the petitioner. According to one of the Biochar company representatives at the
informational meeting which the company hosted on Saturday, October 12, 2024, no such study
has been done. We suggest that the location of the proposed facility along the fragile, graveled
section of WCR6 east of Highway 85 along with expected new truck traffic would result in a
vastly increased generation of road dust during dry weather as well as rapid deterioration of the
road surface during inclement weather. Failure of the Application to address this issue up
front should be cause for its rejection.
3. Air & soil cleanliness
No air or soil cleanliness monitoring is contemplated in the Application proffered by Biochar
Now LLC, nor is there any stated means of controlling the type of or quality of incoming raw
materials which may be reasonably expected to produce noxious emissions when burned. The
burning of common coatings on waste wood such as lead based paints, various wood
preservatives (including creosote), galvanized steel nails, coated assorted steel parts or assorted
pl
astics, as well as the burning of unspecified materials themselves are all known to potentially
produce noxious fumes. The lack of any requirement for an incoming material
acceptance/rejection procedure may therefore lead to the burning of noxious and potentially
toxic incoming materials. From a search of articles available online, the burning of sewage
sludge, barnyard & feedlot waste and other assorted plant waste is also common in this industry
and has not been precluded by any statement in the referenced Application. The absence of a
formal requirement for responsible handling of incoming materials as well as for the strategic
monitoring of air emissions fatally flaws this Application in our opinion.
4. Soil & Ground water contamination.
Any toxic air emissions will likely settle on the surrounding land areas as well as on above-
ground agricultural water and its transport & storage structures, and would result in degradation
of the quality and safety of those surrounding areas for humans as well as for any agricultural
products exposed to it. Storage of toxic materials on the site of the proposed facility will also
potentially contaminate the land on which it is stored, which contamination can migrate in the
soil, contaminate adjacent properties and agricultural water sources, and be very difficult to
remove. The apparent lack of effective standards or procedures for the handling of potentially
toxic materials should result in the rejection of this Application.
5. Property tax revenues
We believe that approval of the referenced project would result in a reduction of value of the
surrounding farm/residential properties that would not be offset by increased tax revenues from
the proposed new facility, and that the Application for construction of the Bio Char facility
should be rejected on this basis alone. We also maintain that approval of the referenced
Application would result in a net decrease in the production of high quality farm products in
Weld County. Over the years that we have lived here we have observed that Weld County has
produced large amounts of high quality agricultural products, a significant portion thereof that
has provided feed and raw materials to established WC industries, such as dairy farms, animal
feed lots, and meat packing plants; and that anything we might do that lessens the availability
of feed for marketable and productive animals will be of negative value to those industries -
consequently inhibiting their business health & future expansion potential. The Biochar
Application does not contain any economic or tax analysis reflecting its potential value to the
County or State; furthermore there is no assertion that the prospective Bio Char product would
be sold or beneficially used in either Weld County or the State of Colorado.
CONCLUSION
We Weld County residents have historically relied on the County to protect our living and working
environments from harmful and unwelcome degradations. Please continue that wholesome tradition
by rejecting the subject Application.
Sincerely,
7 Cs) G'G4'l4,1 jL.9 r
James D. Stewardson
Tel: 303-659-5509 (res)
Tel: 303-570-2740 (cell)
FAX: 303-659-5731
e-mail — jimstew@mesanetworks.net
9/17/2024
To: Weld County Department of Planning Services
Diana Aungst
From: Tony Hale
14760 County Road 6, Ft. Lupton, CO 80621
Re: Case #: USR24-0019
NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC
Ms. Aungst:
It has been brought to our attention via post card received and neighbors regarding the above
referenced case involving NGL Water Solutions and Biochar Processing. For reference, our home is to the
east bordering the proposed location of Biochar Processing.
When NGL was proposing installing SWD wells on this reference property, we were assured that no
other development would take place on this property. This new proposal feels like they are going back on
what surrounding landowners were initially led to believe.
We do NOT feel that installing a Biochar Processing facility would be in the best interest of anybody
other than NGL and Biochar for the following reasons:
1) Air quality. We already struggle with current air quality due to two members of our household being
diagnosed with asthma (utilizing inhalers) and allergies. One with severe problems during poor air
quality times. His pediatrician has been consulted and agrees that this facility will be potentially
harmful to his ability to breathe normally. Installing a facility that will emit m.oretair pollutants within
a few hundred feet of our home can do nothing but negatively impact our health. While we realize
that the end product from biochar technology has the ability to aid in emissions reduction with
application, the production facility where it is created within this close proximity to where we live,
would be harmful to us.
2) Agricultural land should stay agricultural land wherever and whenever possible. We have not seen,
heard or been told why this facility needs to be at this location instead of current available
appropriately zoned acreage. What is the reasoning that the Biochar facility must be at this location?
This is an agricultural area and should remain as such.
3) The facility wilt GREATLY damage our home value. The most valuable asset of our home is the view to
the west. With the facility installation and operation, that view will be removed and destroyed.
4) Traffic increase. This area is already seeing a large increase in traffic due to increasing population.
Adding the Biochar Processing facility will only amplify the problem.
In summary, our family strongly objects the proposal to grant this USR for the installation of a Biochar
Processing facility. We are planning to utilize any and all resources available to us to oppose this installation
to the fullest extent allowable. Thank you for taking your valuable time to acknowledge our concerns.
Regards,
Tony Hale
CEIVED
S
2 1 2i24
Weld County Planning Department
ea�w
for our world
Case No:
Name:
Proposed Project:
Planner:
October 9, 2024
Page 1. of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
P I (720) 722 - 0336
I business@eadefense.org
(4) I www.eadefense.org
PUBLIC COMMENT & OBJECTION
USR24-0019
NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC
USR for uses similar to an organic composting (Biochar
Processing) in the (A) Agricultural Zone District
Diana Aungst
Dear Ms. Aungst,
Environmental and Animal Defense is a Colorado -based nonprofit focused on
environmental and animal protection. We believe all communities have a right to a
healthy environment and work to maintain and improve the places that are homes
to our communities and wildlife. Here, we have drafted a comment on behalf of Jeri
Yarbrough, who opposes the proposed project to issue a Use by Special Review to
NGL Water Solutions DJ LLC for uses similar to an organic composting (Biochar
Processing) in the (A) Agricultural Zone District adjacent to her property.
For the reasons set forth in this comment, Weld County Planning Services should not
approve the proposed project due to its violations of municipal law.
INTRODUCTION
Biochar appears to have net negative environmental impacts in Colorado.
These impacts directly relate to the approval process under Use by Special Review.
Where BioChar Now, the underlying company seeking this project application, touts
its product's agricultural uses, study after study demonstrates that most temperate
zone farmers, i.e. Coloradan farmers, are typically better off composting the
material directly into agricultural soils rather than turning it into biochar before
doing so. This incineration business will dump more pollution into the air, fail to
preserve prime farmland, and otherwise contribute to ethically dubious agricultural
practices.
501 S. Cherry Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80246
Page 2 of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS
Biochar, as described by Biochar Now, has limited applications ranging from
odor control, bio-filtering, and purportedly agricultural use to boost crop yields. The
problem is that there are extremely limited commercial uses that benefit Colorado,
most of them related to absorbing toxins in soils.
The fundamental problem is that biochar as a soil additive in temperate
climates, which that vast majority of the United States is, does not have significant
measurable benefits.1 Even studies that conclude that there are any soil health
benefits in temperate climates do so reluctantly. For example, in one study, the
authors concluded there were some benefits noted in temperate climates, but "the
impact of biochar on crop productivity in temperate agroecosystems is unclear."2
Other studies that are able to find any soil benefits make clear that the findings are
limited, stating "[t3 here was no significant effect of biochar on pH, soil organic
carbon, hot water extractable soluble carbon, light fraction carbon, total nitrogen,
bulk density, water stable aggregates, microbial biomass carbon, carbon substrate
use, species richness, species diversity, crop root and shoot biomass, harvest index,
nitrogen and phosphorus uptake, use efficiency, uptake efficiency and utilization
efficiency."3
3
When studies look at biochar versus composts of the materials they state, "it
cannot be concluded that biochar in general leads to more or longer -lasting
beneficial effects in soils compared to straw or compost."4 In the absence of some
specific soil toxicity issue, such as a specific objective to defluoride waters,5 where
1 See generally Simon Jeffery et al. Blocher boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields, ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LETTERS (2017) blips: iopscience.iop.org article 10.1088 1748-9326 aa67bd1 ("Here we use a global -
scale meta -analysis to show that biochar has, on average, no effect on crop yield in temperate
latitudes, yet elicits a 25% average increase in yield in the tropics.")
2 Vicky Levesque, Maren Oelbermann, and Noura Ziadi. Biochar in temperate soils: opportunities
and challenges. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE (2022), https://doi.org/10.11:19/cjss-2021-0047
3 R.W. Jiang, M.A. Mechler, M. Oelbermann, Exploring the effects of one-time biochar application
with low dosage on soil health in temperate climates, SOIL SECURITY, VOLUME 12 (2023),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. oisec. 20 23.100101
4 Martin Siedt, Andreas Schaffer, Kilian E.C. Smith, Moritz Nabel, Martina RoB-Nickoll, Joost T.
van Dongen, Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil
amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of
pesticides, SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, VOLUME 751 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141607
5 Rakesh Kumar, Prabhakar Sharma, Pawan Kumar Rose, Prafulla Kumar Sahoo, Prosun
Bhattacharya, Ashok Pandey, Manish Kumar, Co -transport and deposition of fluoride using rice
husk -derived biochar in saturated porous media: Effect of solution chemistry and surface properties,
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION, VOLUME 30 (2023),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2023.103056 ("biochar-mediated sand columns can be utilized for
defluoridation.")
Page 3 of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
biochar may slightly outperform other materials,6 there seems to be little
compelling reason to use the substance.
Put more bluntly, there has been little scientific development over the last
decade, since the original market hype of biochar first reached is fervor, claiming it
to be the next black gold, that evinces biochar has escaped its snake oil claims of
fixing energy, food, and climate woes.'
what biochar does do is generate criteria air pollutants as defined by the
Clean Air Act.8 For example, "[d] epending on the nature of the biomass and the
thermal processing, VOC content in biochar can reach 40%."9 Denver Metro has
suffered from major air pollution issues over the last decade. It was only in July
2024 that the EPA reclassified Denver metro/ northern Front Range, including
northern Weld County, from moderate to serious nonattainment area for ozone. The
way to combat these pressing air pollution issues are, according to the Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment, "reducing emissions of
precursors to ozone formation nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)."° It may be unsurprising that a facility that uses high heat to
cook organic compounds generates volatile organic compounds, and are regularly
regulated as incinerators that require Title V Clean Air Act Permits. 11
Ozone itself has significant negative impacts on agricultural production.
Ozone "causes a variety of responses including visible injury, reductions in Rubisco
activity, chlorophyll content and photosynthesis and alterations in stomatal
conductance (gsto), alterations to carbon (C) allocation including decreased root:
shoot ratios, and reductions in biomass and yield quantity and quality. A meta -
analysis of studies on the effects of ambient versus pre -industrial 03 levels found
wheat yield losses of 8.4% demonstrating a significant and consistent crop response
6 Supra at 4. ("Biochar is most effective in increasing the sorption capacity of soils"
7 Biochar: Black Gold or Just Another Snake Oil Scheme?, Rachel Smolker, EARTH ISLAND,
(September 18, 2013),
https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/biochar black gold or just another sn
ake oil scheme/?utin source=google&utm medium=paid&utm campaign=tfd dsa&gad source=l&g
clid=Cj 0KCQjw9Km3BhDjARIsAGUb4nwINgZTYgf2defV2e-
fF7O3nTpY6UtNu 1 SD Mz9CmZ1NjUz6-koLC8aAhVSEALw wcB
8 Bruce Springsteen, Georgine G. Yorgey, Geoffrey Glass, and Christos Christoforou, Air Pollutant
Emissions and Air Emissions Permitting for Biochar Production Systems,
https://wpcdn.web.wsu.edu/cahnrs/uploads/sites/44/Riomass2Biochar-Chapter1 2.pdf
9 Saletnik, B., Zagula, G., Bajcar, M., Tarapatskyy, M., Bobula, G., and Puchalski, C. Biochar as a
multifunctional component of the environment —a review. APPLIED SCIENCE
(2019), h.ttps://www.nuipi.comi2076-3417/9/6/1139
10 Federal ozone pollution standards and Colorado nonattainment areas, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT, https://cdphe.coloradu.gov/nonattainment-federal-ozone-pollution-
standards#:—:text=ln°ia202022%2C%20the%20EPA%20reclassified,2024%2D2026%20ozone%20seaso
n%20data.
11 Supra at 8.
Page 4 of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
to current ambient 03 concentrations."12 Ozone not only causes agricultural crop
loses, but significant impacts on forests, including Ozone has also been found to
increase forest susceptibility to drought, wind throw, as well as insect and pest
attack (e.g. bark beetle, wood borer, fungal infection). 13
The US Environmental Protection Agency own Policy Assessment for the
Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards makes all of these
same conclusions. Ozone, the main component of smog, is a corrosive air pollutant
that inflames the lungs, constricts breathing, and even kills people.14 Ozone -induced
health problems can force people to change their ordinary activities, requiring
children to stay indoors and forcing people to take medication and miss work or
school.15 Ground -level ozone, commonly referred to as smog, is formed by the
interaction of two pollutants, volatile organic compounds ("VOC") and nitrogen
oxides ("NOx"), with sunlight.16 These pollutants can be emitted by upwind states
and carried to downwind states, causing ozone pollution there.17 Ozone pollution
causes severe health impacts, including increased emergency room visits and
hospital admissions, as well as premature death.18 Children, the elderly, and people
with respiratory conditions are most at risk from ozone pollution.19 Ozone also
damages vegetation and forested ecosystems, causing or contributing to widespread
stunting of plant growth, tree deaths, reduced carbon storage, and reduced crop
yields.29 The damage includes tree -growth losses reaching 30-50% in some areas,
and widespread visible leaf injury, including 25- 37% of sites studied in just one
state.21 By harming vegetation, ozone can also damage entire ecosystems, leading to
ecological and economic losses.22
Biochar Now celebrates on its website a feature from Denver 7 showcasing
how it can utilize waste wood from bark beetle. But a biochar facility would
contribute to the very problem that it's purporting to solve by making the bark
12 Lisa Emberson, Effects of ozone on agriculture, forests and grasslands, PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY A: MATHEMATICAL, PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES,
VOLUME 378, ISSUE 2183 (2020), https://dui.org/ 1U.1UU8Irsta. 2U 19.U3> i
13
Id.
14 See EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 80 Fed. Reg. 65,292, 65,308 (Oct. 26,
2015); EPA, Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, at 2-20
to -24, Table 2-1 (Feb. 2013).
15 See, e.g., EPA, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, at 4-12 (Aug. 2014).
16 Sierra Club U. United States EPA, 972 F.3d 290, 293-94 (3d Cir. 2020).
17 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489, 497 (2014).
18 EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 73 Fed. Reg. 16,436, 16,440 (Mar. 27,
2008).
19 EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 73 Fed. Reg. 16,436, 16,441 (Mar. 27,
2008).
20 EPA, Policy Assessment at 5-2 to -3; Science Assessment at 9-1.
21 EPA, Policy Assessment at 5-13; Science Assessment at 9-40.
22 80 Fed. Reg. at 65,370, 65,377.
Page 5 of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
beetle infestations worse along the Front Range. 23 This negative ozone feedback
loop may be beneficial to Biochar Now's business, but it is not beneficial to the
health and environment of the Colorado Front Range.
Market analysis of biochar use in the United States shows another troubling
trend. The second most predominant use of biochar is as animal feed. 24 As the US
Biochar initiative notes, however, "Biochar is not recognized in the US as an
approved animal feed material by AAFCO. Biochar producers are encouraged to
proceed cautiously and seek qualified legal advice before considering selling any
biochar or biochar amended product as feed. " 25 In other' words, biochar, as a
commercial product, is used primarily in agricultural systems in South America,
with little to no benefit in Colorado, and its secondary most predominant use is as
an unapproved and unregulated animal feed. It is no wonder Biochar Now does not
list this use on its website as an application for which it sells its products, 26 even
though it will undoubtedly be used in agricultural feeds anyway.
Finally, large scale applications of biochar are not explored, and the product
has little evidence of its utility in its largest scale applications. Most concerning of
all, biochar is an effectively irreversible product. Once biochar is added to the soil it
would become nearly impossible to remove. 27 This is particularly concerning where:
"[m]ixed findings are often reported; however, the results suggest that high
doses of biochar in clay soils are likely to decrease available water content,
and surface application of biochar to sandy soils likely increases erosion and
particulate matter emissions. Furthermore, biochar may increase the
likelihood of excessive soil salinity and decreased soil fertility because of an
increase in the pH of alkaline soils causing nutrient precipitation. Regarding
the impact of biochar on (agro)chemicals and the role of biochar-borne toxic
substances, these factors cannot be neglected because of their apparent
undesirable effects on target and non -target organisms, respectively. ... Our
current understanding of the overall effects of biochar on soil and soil biota
and their mutual interactions is not clear because biochar can have positive,
negative, or neutral effects. These mixed findings clearly illustrate that the
complex interactions and resulting effects of biochar on soil biota have been
inadequately studied. Conclusions drawn from mainstream biochar-
promoting studies may be misleading given that biochar is perceived as a
1-23 Biochar Feature on Channel 7, BIOCHAR Now, available at hops://youtu.be/3zVgJ 1 K6eHM (last
visited Oct. 9, 2024)
24 U.S. Biochar Market Size & Share Analysis Report, 2030,
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-biochar-market
25 Biochar and Livestock, US BIOCHAR INITIATIVE, https://biochar-us.org/biochar-and-livestock
26 Biochar Now Products, BIOCHAR Now, available at https://biucharnuw•.cum/products/ (last visited
Oct. 9, 2024)
27 See Long-term experiment — Ichar, ASSOCIAZIONE ITALIANA BIOCHAR, available at
https://ichar.org/index.php/long-term-experiement/ (last visited Oct 9, 2024)
Page 6 of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
positive tool for improving soil quality without considering the overall
picture, and possible negative effects are usually overlooked at all levels." 28
These negative impacts, combined with the following violations of local law, should
warrant the rejection of this proposed project.
VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL LAW
Pursuant to the Weld County Municipal Code, "uses by Special Review are USES
which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater
impact than the Uses Allowed by Right in a particular zone district..." W.C.M.C. §
23-2-200. In an application for a Special Review Permit, "the applicant has the
burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions [within the zoning code]
are met." W.C.M.C. § 23-2-220. This includes, but is not limited to:
• That if the USE is proposed to be located in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District, the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to
conserve PRIME FARMLAND in the locational decision for the proposed
USE. W.C.M.C. § 23-2-220, § 23-2-230.
• That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and
welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY.
W.C.M.C. § 23-2-220, § 23-2-230.
• Buffering or SCREENING of the proposed USE from ADJACENT properties
may be required in order to make the determination that the proposed USE
is compatible with the surrounding USES. Buffering or SCREENING may be
accomplished through a combination of berming, landscaping and fencing.
W.C.M.C. § 23-2-240.
• Uses by Special Review in the A (Agricultural) Zone District shall be located
on the least prime soils on the property in question unless the applicant can
demonstrate why such a location would be impractical or infeasible.
W.C.M.C. § 23-2-240.
• The operation of the USES shall comply with the air quality regulations
promulgated by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. W.C.M.C. §
23-2-250.
• The operation of the USES shall comply with the noise standards
enumerated in Section 25-12-101, et seq., C.R.S. W.C.M.C. § 23-2-250.
28 Martin Brtnicky, Rahul Datta, Jiri Holatko, Lucie Bielska, Zygmunt M. Gusiatin, Jiri. Kucerik,
Tereza Hammerschmiedt, Subhan Danish, Maja Radziemska, Ludmila Mravcova, Shah Fahad,
Antonin Kintl, Marek Sudoma, Niaz Ahmed, Vaclav Pecina, A critical review of the possible adverse
effects of biochar in the soil environment, SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, VOLUME 796 (2021),
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/i.scitotenv. 20 21.148 :)
Page 7 of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
The USES shall not emit heat so as to raise the temperature of the air more
than five degrees Fahrenheit at or beyond the LOT line. W.C.M.C. § 23-2-240.
NGL Water Solutions LLC is seeking to obtain a Uses by Special Review permit so
that Biochar Now, LLC may develop a facility on site. The permit application
clearly states that the property is in the Agricultural Zone and being used for
agricultural purposes. While there are 3 injection wells on the property, they are
not operational, as stated in the project application.
The property is primarily being used as farmland.
The proposed use will develop 40 kilns and electrical controls, including backup
kilns and electrical controls, a skid steer, a loader, and a modular office building on
site, as well as a 100' x 100' concrete pad and graveled driving areas. An opaque
metal fence approximately 8' high will be constructed around the facility.
Inconsistency with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
Under the Comprehensive Plan, Weld County elected and appointed officials and
staff are bound by adhering to the directions of the Land use goals and objectives,
W.C.M.C. § 22-2-30. The first of those objections is to "Commit to the future of
agriculture" and that "Land use changes should not inhibit agricultural production
nor operations." However, this proposal would do just that.
Ms. Yarbrough's property is directly to the south of the applicant's property, where
she lives with her family and animals; operates a horse boarding facility; and grows
hay. This proposed development will impact Ms. Yarbrough's private property
rights, primarily to operate her business and to engage in agricultural operations,
but also her private use and enjoyment of her home. Ms. Yarbrough has already
been verbally advised by a realtor representing Biochar Now, LLC that once the site
is operational she would no longer be able to engage in hay farming due to the
effects of the site. Since the site would be operating 24/7, 365 days per year, Ms.
Yarbrough would be forever unable to safely engage in her agricultural operations.
It is incorrect for the applicant to state that this proposal respects private property
rights, as it would directly infringe upon Ms. Yarbrough's use and rights in her own
property. See W.C.M.C. § 22-2-10.B. Furthermore, as the development of the
applicant property would violate the goal of Weld County to protect and respect the
County's Agricultural Heritage. See W.C.M.C. § 22-2-10.A.
Additionally, as part of Weld County's Right to Farm Statement, officials and staff
are directed to ensure that "agricultural users of the land should not be expected to
Page 8ot10
Environmental and Animal Defense
change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions
of urban users into a rural area? W. . . . § 22-2-30.A.4.a. The ordinance further
provides a list of agricultural uses it desires to protect within the Right -to -Farm
Statement. "Well -run agricultural activities will generate off -site impacts, including
noise from tractors and equipment; slow -moving farm vehicles on rural roads; dust
from animal pens, field work, harvest, and gravel roads; odor from animal
confinement, silage, and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes;
hunting and trapping activities; shooting sports, legal hazing of nuisance wildlife;
and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial
spraying. It is common practice for agricultural producers to utilize an
accumulation of agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their agricultural
operations." In the list of agricultural uses, it is clear that operating a charcoal
burning facility is not an agricultural use, and therefore, clearly why a Use by
Special Review permit is required for any charcoal burning operations.
Finally, the proposed charcoal burning is clearly not directly related to agriculture.
See '. .M. . § 23410. The applicant's own documents indicate that there are
many uses for charcoal, agricultural use only being one of them. However, the
charcoal will not be directly related to any agricultural use on the applicant
property, nor seemingly could it be. Instead, it will be shipped to another location
for processing and sorting for further sale to other outside facilities, most of which
will be entirely outside Weld County.'' Thus, where Weld County so highly
prioritizes continuing agricultural operations, it must acknowledge that this
proposal is not consistent with the intent of the Agricultural Zone.
Therefore, staff must adhere to the directives of the Comprehensive Plan and
determine that this permit proposal does not conform with the Comprehensive
P'lan's priority to conserve agricultural use.
Inconsistency with Zoning Requirements and USR Permitting Process
1. Prime Farmland
Under the county ordinances, any Use by Special Review permit runs demonstrate
a diligent effort has been made to conserve prime farmland. Here, the applicant has
done no such thing. The application states that "this property contains soil
classified as farmland of statewide importance and prime farmland if irrigated." It
also acknowledges that the property is currently flood irrigated. Therefore, the
property contains prime farmland, and the applicant must show diligent efforts to
conserve it. The applicant does not, and instead downplays the "small" nature of the
site and insignificant reduction in farmland. The ordinance is clear: an applicant
29►, m land Health Impacts, supra.
Page 9 of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
must demonstrate a diligent effort to conserve the farmland on site. That does not
include any leeway for an applicant to merely opine on the significance of the
reduction in farmland on site. The parcel is 33 acres. Pursuant to the plats, the
intended facility will take up nearly the entirety remaining open land on the parcel.
There is no document in the application that purports any other efforts to maintain
prime farmland on the parcel. Indeed, the entire application demonstrates that the
parcel will no longer be used for any farming operations whatsoever and does not
include any description of diligence taken to conserve any prime farmland or
agricultural operations.
2. Screening
The applicant proposes to store raw material stockpiles 15' -- 20' in height directly
across from Ms. Yarbrough's property and within visibility. The permit applicant's
screening plan only plans for a minimum 8' tall solid, opaque metal fencing around
the facility. There is nothing to indicate that the stockpiles themselves will be
screened by any means. Thus, the facility is inconsistent with the screening
requirements for Uses by Special Review. See W.C.M.C. § W.C.M.C. § 23-2-240.
3. Air Quality
There is not a reliable demonstration that the applicant will adhere to the air
quality regulations by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. As part of the
application, there are 3 kiln emission results dating back to 2021. These results are
3 years old and provide no indication of current emissions compliance status, nor
similarity to the kilns or process that is proposed for the applicant property.
4. Noise
While the applicant sets forth a noise study, it is inconsistent with the applicant's
questionnaire of proposed use. In the questionnaire, the applicant stated that
operations would be continuous, 24/7, 365 days a year. In the noise study, it
indicates that "the operation will only occur during the daytime. Therefore, the
operational noise will be assessed against the Weld County Daytime noise limit of
55 dBA." This study is therefore insufficient. The applicant must evaluate noise
against all noise limitations, because it is intended to be operated at all hours of the
day, every single day.
Conclusion
In sum, there are multiple demonstrations of inconsistencies with the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan and the Use by Special Review application requirement
ordinances. Furthermore, this facility will infringe upon Ms. Yarbrough's right to
ongoing agricultural operations on her own property. For these reasons, the Weld
County Planning Services should reject the permit application.
Page 10 of 10
Environmental and Animal Defense
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alexa McKay, Esq.
Jeremy McKay, Esq.
Environmental and Animal Defense
501 S. Cherry St. Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80246
720-722-0336
amckay@eadefense.org
jrnckay@eadefense.org
Chelsea Luedke DVM, MS
Heritage Equine Clinic
Brighton, CO
303-578-5898
To Whom It May Concern,
EXHIBIT
ill
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed biochar facility being installed
near Jeri Yarbrough's facility. While I understand the importance of sustainable energy
projects, the proximity of this facility to her horses (our patients) poses significant risks to
their long-term health and well-being. As an equine veterinarian, I have strong concerns
about this possibility.
Biochar production releases fine particulate matter and other pollutants into the air, which
could lead to respiratory issues, compromised immune systems, and other chronic health
problems in horses. These animals are highly sensitive to environmental changes, and any
decline in air quality or the introduction of toxins could have devastating effects on their
health.
I urge the county to carefully consider the potential impact of this facility on the
surrounding environment and the health of the horses in the area. I hope you will take these
concerns into account and explore alternative locations that would not put animals and
their caretakers at risk.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
ressec:-.7."`##". _
Dr. Chelsea Luedke
allillmaann
BIOCHAR NOW, LLC
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR)
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSE LETTER
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
EXHIBIT
b
la
.0
S
12
Biochar Processing CR 6, LLC is in receipt of the surrounding property owner letters, as submitted to Weld
County Planning. In addition to the October 12, 2024 neighborhood meeting that was held in order to first
address neighbors' concerns, this letter seeks to directly respond to the specifically stated concerns in order
to demonstrate that the site is compliant with the USR standards, to actively mitigate potential nuisances and
to correct any misstated assumptions about the project.
Submitted Objections/Concerns
Prime Farmland
This singular, �35 acre site (consisting of 2 adjacent parcels) is owned by NGL, who does not own any other
contiguous land holdings. Given the presence of the injection wells and the small lot size, productive,
commercial agricultural operations on this property is highest and best use of the site and is impractical to
presume that farming would be the long term land use on this property. It is evident by the many intensive
industrial and oil and gas facilities in the area, such as the Discovery DJ - Boardwalk Compressor Station,
located immediately northwest of the Sack Farm, the Chevron (PDC) oil and gas facility located immediately
west of the Sack Farm, Wells Concrete facility located 0.5 miles to the west of the site and the Vestas
production facility located 1 mile to the west of the site that multiple non-traditional agricultural operations
have been considered and approved in the area. The balance of these facilities to the existing farmland and
rural residences does not appear to be affected, as there are productive traditional agricultural operations
located directly adjacent to the above stated examples and both appear to successfully exist. There should be
no presumption that the Biochar facility would not be able to demonstrate similar compliance and ability to
harmoniously operate.
Disruption to historic agriculture
There are claims that the facility will reduce and impact agricultural and animal operations. The facility helps
to counter balance the impacts of large-scale agricultural and oil and gas activities across the County and
serves the agricultural economy by reclaiming and restoring contaminated sites to productive farmland or
rangeland, by the use of biochar. It also can be used to improve the economic output and health of animal
production operations, thereby providing a stabilizing service to agricultural practices, ensuring a long term
mix of land uses. This claim can be seen specifically in an SPO statement that the current use of the property,
being alfalfa production, as managed under a lease between NGL and the farmer, will be lost as a result of this
application. As NGL is the current property owner, they have decided that the best use of the property is a
partnership, where Biochar will develop the subject facility on the site. Therefore, although Biochar will be the
user of the site, the decision to transition from alfalfa production to a different use rests with the property
owner.
Page 1 of 9
Dust from the charcoal can cause cancer
A neighbor submitted a 2013 study attempting to link Biochar Now production to increases of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) to the production of biochar. It appears that the report was based on
different/outdated technologies and operations. There are no hydrocarbons in Biochar Now's exhaust and
their biochar has been tested and has no PAHs in the biochar. See the supplied PDF titled "PAH and PCB test
results"
Regarding dust, the conversion and movement of biochar does not create or release fine particulates or dust.
The converted biochar material is solid and is roughly 2 to 10 inches in size and is not prone to becoming
airborne. Even if this was the case, which it is not, the concept of produced biochar in dust form would be a
priority to collect, as the losing of any product by wind would be disadvantageous to the company, who
n aturally seeks to maintain the full extent of their product. The original USR application did not include any
protective covering at the location where the transfer of biochar from kiln to container will occur, as other
Biochar Now sites have successfully operated without this measure. The hoop structure at the Berthoud site
is used for processing and sorting of biochar, which will not occur at this site. That being said, fugitive dust has
n ot been a problem at the Berthoud but we are willing to include a hoop structure where the material transfer
will occur for further mitigation, should there be a perception of risk. This inclusion would cause any material
to remain contained in the structure. Should this staff believe this concession is beneficial, it can be included
on the USR plan as a future improvement, to be constructed when needed.
Air emissions
Emissions test results have been supplied. There will be limited air emissions from this facility and based on
other operation sites, this can be effectively mitigated through the proprietary technologies and processes of
Biochar Now. We understand that an air permit issued by the CDPHE will guide and monitor the air emissions
and any instance of non-compliance would be in violation of the development standards.
Burning and unintended releases can cause contamination to the ground and water
Biochar is used for water filtration. There is no liquid by-product from our production and no solid waste
streams besides recyclable metal. Unconverted materials from a kiln cycle are separated and reintroduced
into subsequent cycles. Other biochar production technologies produce liquid discharges. We will likely be
u sing biochar to improve the water quality associated with the onsite stormwater. There are no release event
potentials, besides the ability for a tote to tip. However, this Biochar process is not yet processed into finer
specs, so the clean-up ability, if needed, would be straightforward. Standard emergency spill kit equipment
will be kept on -site.
Concerns about horse proximity to the biochar production
There is apparent concern that horses located at a local equine boarding facility will be negatively impacted,
which we disagree with. It is mentioned that stables will be 100 feet away from the Biochar operations. Per our
USR map, it appears that her stables area will be over 500 feet from production and the property line is over
200 feet from the facility. With the proposed screening, air control efforts, noise mitigation, etc. there should
be no acute effects on the horses.
Page 2 of 9
Impact on wildlife
It is unclear if Colorado Parks and Wildlife received a referral request. The application team independently
contacted Erin Priest, Area 2 - District Wildlife Manager in an attempt to solicit feedback on the USR
application. Following a response from Priest, the application was reviewed, at the prompting of the applicant
team. As stated in the referral letter dated February 3, 2025, CPW has no concerns with this application, which
indicates to the Biochar team that no adverse wildlife impacts are expected or required to be mitigated based
on State -level agency assessment. Additionally, per the CPW High Priority Habitat Web Map Application, which
displays a variety of species such as Bald Eagle nests, Cutthroat Trout, Burrowing Owls, and Mule Deer, the
site is not located within any HPH corridors, habitats, ranges, or areas.
Traffic around the bend at CR 6
We are open to working with the county but do not see this as a major concern as there will be minimal traffic
to the site. If needed, we can put up guard rails along the north side of CR 6 to help mitigate any potential
accidents for both the traveling public and Biochar traffic; this will improve the safety above the existing level
and will benefit the community. We are willing to work with the county on additional road safety measures, to
be detailed in the Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement.
There will be minimal traffic to the site. This traffic will also not be impacting most of the attendees to the
community meeting as almost all of the traffic will be coming from the west and heading to the west (no impact
to WCR 31)
Lost income
The concern that the proposed facility will be responsible for the loss of income from businesses located on
adjacent lands is a presumption that cannot be predicted prior to operation. It is the intention of the operator
to be a quality addition to the community, which currently contains a variety of low impact and intensive uses.
In this way, we expect the value of the subject property to increase, which may also positively impact the value
of surrounding properties.
Noise pollution
There are concerns with noise from the facility negatively impacting surrounding land uses. The proposed
sound barriers/panels, as detailed in the Noise Report, which are a significant cost of the project, are proposed
to bring noise into compliance with Agricultural noise levels. Given the noisiest parts of the operation will occur
during daytime, such as truck access, heavy equipment operation, shredding, screening and sorting materials.
Furthermore, the shredder and screens are mobile equipment pieces, which will only operate on -site less than
one week per month, as these machines can prepare raw materials in batches, highly minimizing noise
impacts. It should also be noted that heavy equipment will utilize low tone and frequency back up alarms, with
no shrill or high-pitched noise. It should be noted that Biochar received a grant from CDPHE for the shredder,
which may suggest its quality and conformance to CDPHE equipment standards.
Light pollution
There are concerns that light will disrupt the enjoyment and nature of surrounding properties. Lighting will be
minimal as detailed in the supplied lighting plan. All lighting shall be downcast and shielded as detailed. Truck
Page 3 of 9
lighting, as it enters the site, will be blocked from surrounding properties to the south and east by the proposed
solid fence. Pole and building mounted lighting will be no taller than 20 -feet, and will not shine onto adjacent
properties. Should there be a complaint on any specific light, the operator will promptly address and correct
any instance of noncompliance.
Screening
There are suggestions that the application does not meet the Weld County Code - USR requirements for
Screening. We respectfully disagree in that the proposed fence adequately screens the visual aspect of the
facility from a human -scale vantage point. Additionally, as the fence is setback from the property line and the
stockpiles are further within the fenced yard, the viewing angle to observe the stockpiles and/or equipment
and operations will be slight, diminishing nearly all activity. Berming is being considered along the eastern
portion of the facility area, to buffer the site from the residential property to the east. Staff is willing to work
with the property owner to develop the extent of that berm, based on his preference, should the application be
approved.
Fire risk
We will continue to address fire protection and suppression requirements with Brighton Fire Protection
District. At the existing Berthoud facility, Biochar has been operating for N12 years and never had a reported
fire issue. No fire issues have occurred at other sites.
Drainage
Per the Drainage Report, prepared by Civil Arts, regarding the impact of site development on upstream and
downstream properties, they can certify that the impact of the site development on upstream and downstream
properties are negligible because we are limiting the post -development discharge and volume to be equal to
or less than the pre -development discharge rate and volume. The major drainage basin for the site will mimic
the existing flow patterns of the historic drainage for the site. The site will continue to drain southwest to
northeast. This proposed drainage system will conform with the goals, policies, and standards, outlined in
Weld County Code, Chapter 8 - Public Works, Article XI - Storm Drainage. It also provides the required
treatment and post development analysis.
Compatibility
The proposed development is highly suitable for this site, which is already occupied by the NGL injection well
facility. Given the constraints imposed by the injection well facility —including both perceived and real
limitations such as setback requirements —it is neither feasible nor realistic to develop this land for uses such
as commercial farming or rural residential. Furthermore, the property owner no longer holds sufficient water
rights for agricultural use, as they were sold to the neighboring Sack family. While the property to the south is
currently leased on a month -to -month basis for farming by an entity with access to water rights, the fact
remains that the existing owner —and any future owners —cannot farm this land without acquiring additional
water rights. This limitation significantly reduces the viability of long-term agricultural use and supports the
need for a more productive and sustainable economic development opportunity.
Page 4 of 9
Additionally, prioritizing development on this site over raw, greenfield locations is a prudent land -use decision.
Developing this facility in a more rural part of the county would be impractical due to increased transportation
costs, distance from material suppliers, and the risk of further fragmenting business development. This project
aligns with several key sections of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, as outlined below:
Section 22-2-10.C Promoting Economic Growth and Stability. Land use policies have a significant impact on
economic conditions in the County and should be structured to encourage economic prosperity. To ensure the
continued strength of Weld County's economy, land use processes and decisions based on this plan shall be
consistent and promote fiscally responsible growth.
■ The Weld County Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of land -use policies that encourage
economic prosperity and fiscally responsible growth. The proposed facility aligns with these principles
by:
■ Generating economic growth through construction, temporary employment, and ongoing facility
operations.
■ Providing stable, long-term employment and reinforcing the success of existing Weld County businesses.
■ Strengthening the county's industrial ecosystem by expanding the footprint of an established business in
a location that supports continued growth.
Section 22-2-30.C.1: Transition between land use types and intensities with buffers. Uses that are
incompatible with existing uses must be able to mitigate conflicts.
While the proposed facility differs from some surrounding land uses, it can be made compatible through
proper mitigation strategies. Biochar is committed to:
■ Implementing visual and physical buffers to minimize land -use conflicts.
■ Complying with all site requirements and operational standards to mitigate potential concerns from
surrounding property owners.
■ Demonstrating over time that the facility is a beneficial addition to the area, coexisting harmoniously with
neighboring uses.
Section 22-2-40.A.5: Encourage agglomeration economies of synergistic businesses
Proximity to key suppliers is critical for the success of this facility. The unique waste streams processed at this
site are converted into a marketable product, which requires efficient access to raw materials. The proposed
location offers key advantages:
■ Close proximity to major material sources such as Vestas.
■ Access to the CR-6 and US Highway 85 trucking corridor, ensuring efficient transportation and logistics.
Land Use Constraints and Feasibility
The viability of long-term agricultural use on this property is significantly limited due to the lack of sufficient
water rights. While the adjacent property to the south is currently leased for farming by an entity with water
rights, the current property owner —and any future owners —cannot farm this land without acquiring additional
water rights, making agriculture an unsustainable long-term use. Given these limitations, the highest and best
Page 5 of 9
use of the property is not farming, but rather a development that aligns with existing industrial and economic
activities in the area. The proposed facility presents a logical and beneficial alternative that maximizes the
potential of the site.
Demonstrated Land Use Compatibility in Weld County
The proposed facility aligns with the county's historic and current land -use patterns, particularly in
unincorporated Weld County, where agricultural and oil -and -gas -related businesses have been dominant.
While the facility may differ from immediate surrounding uses, it can achieve compatibility through impact
mitigation and stakeholder engagement.
■ Within one mile of the site, there are at least eight (8) USR permits for agricultural and mineral resource
development.
■ Beyond this radius, numerous USR and SPR permitted operations demonstrate a precedent for mixed -
use compatibility.
■ The existing, main Biochar facility in Berthoud is located less than one-half mile from a large,
incorporated urban subdivision, with a rocket engine testing facility in between the two. There are many
instances across the County where dissimilar land uses can be suitably and appropriately located
adjacent to one another as long as proper mitigation and education can be received by neighbors in
order to achieve mutual understanding and coexistence.
■ Throughout Weld County, diverse land uses have coexisted through proper mitigation, education, and
outreach efforts.
By locating the proposed facility on this constrained site rather than a greenfield area, Weld County can
balance economic development with responsible land use planning. This facility will not only support the
county's business sector but will do so in a way that minimizes land use conflicts and ensures long-term
operational sustainability.
Site selection
Selecting an appropriate site for the proposed facility required careful consideration of multiple factors,
including access to raw materials, transportation infrastructure, regulatory requirements, cost, and overall
feasibility. After evaluating numerous potential locations, this site emerged as the most viable option based
on the following key criteria:
1. Proximity to Feedstock Supply
A key factor in site selection was access to a consistent and reliable supply of feedstock. The site's proximity
to major agricultural and manufacturing operations ensures an ongoing source of raw materials.
■ Vestas, located nearby, is projected to produce approximately 800 tons of waste wood per month, which
serves as a valuable input for biochar production.
■ The U.S. Highway 85 corridor is home to multiple businesses that generate similar organic waste
streams, reinforcing the strategic advantage of locating in this area.
Page 6 of 9
2. Access to Transportation and Distribution Networks
Efficient transportation access is essential for receiving feedstock and distributing finished biochar products
to agricultural and energy -sector partners.
■ The site is conveniently located along County Road 6 and U.S. Highway 85, providing direct access to
regional and interstate routes.
■ This connectivity reduces transportation costs and ensures efficient logistics for suppliers and end
u sers.
3. Proximity to Agricultural and Energy Sector Operations
As a facility supporting agriculture and oil and gas operations, this site is well -positioned near businesses that
benefit from biochar's applications.
■ Biochar has direct benefits for soil health, carbon sequestration, and agricultural productivity, making
this location ideal for distribution to local farms and agricultural businesses.
■ The site is also strategically located near energy -sector operations that require sustainable waste
management solutions and environmental remediation applications.
4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
While every site has nearby properties with different land uses, this location is well -suited for the proposed
facility due to:
■ Existing agricultural, resource -based, and energy -related businesses that align with biochar's purpose
and benefits.
■ The ability to implement screening and buffering measures to mitigate potential concerns from
n eighboring landowners.
■ A location that avoids direct impacts on high -density residential communities, unlike other sites that
were considered.
5. Compliance with Regulatory and Environmental Considerations
■ The facility will be designed to meet Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE)
requirements for biochar production.
■ The site was carefully reviewed in relation to Disproportionately Impacted Communities (DIC) zones to
e nsure responsible land use and environmental consideration.
■ Full DIC zoning information can be accessed via the CDPHE DIC Mapping Tool.
6. Cost and Economic Feasibility
■ The cost of land acquisition was a significant factor in site selection. This location offered a cost-
effective balance between affordability and strategic benefits.
■ Development costs, including necessary screening, road access, and site preparation, were evaluated
to ensure long-term feasibility.
■ This site was more economically viable than alternative locations that posed higher financial and
logistical challenges.
Page 7 of 9
7. Approval Process and Municipal Considerations
■ Weld County was identified as the preferred jurisdiction due to its strong support for agricultural and
energy -sector businesses.
■ The project team considered approval timeframes and land -use compatibility, ensuring a reasonable
and achievable path to operation.
■ Alternative sites faced greater challenges related to regulatory approvals, residential proximity, and
infrastructure constraints.
8. Alignment with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
■ The proposed facility supports Weld County's long-standing agricultural and energy industries by
providing a resource that enhances soil productivity and promotes sustainable land management.
■ The project contributes to regional economic stability by repurposing organic waste into a beneficial
product, reducing environmental impacts, and supporting agricultural resiliency.
■ The site is consistent with Weld County's goals of supporting value-added agricultural businesses and
resource -based operations.
While every site has neighboring properties, after a detailed review of potential locations, this site was selected
as the most suitable for this operations due to its:
■ Proximity to key feedstock sources (Vestas, US -85 corridor businesses)
■ Access to transportation routes (CR-6, US -85, regional logistics infrastructure)
■ Alignment with agricultural and energy -sector needs
■ Strategic location with fewer land -use conflicts than alternative sites
■ Economic viability, development feasibility, and regulatory compliance
■ Consistency with Weld County's long-term land -use planning goals
Agricultural Application
Per received comments, the use, value and applicability of Biochar is extremely limited in Colorado and other
temperate climates. Biochar disagrees with this assessment, as there are a variety of demonstrated
agricultural applications as detailed below.
Based on the proprietary processes developed by Biochar, the following benefits of the Biochar Now product
are explained below:
1. Soil Improvement & Fertility
■ Enhances Soil Structure: Helps improve aeration, drainage, and water retention, making soils more
resilient to drought and heavy rainfall.
■ Increases Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC): Improves nutrient retention, reducing leaching of essential
nutrients like nitrogen and potassium.
■ Supports Microbial Activity: Creates a habitat for beneficial microbes, which aid in plant growth and
disease resistance.
Page 8 of 9
2. Water Management
■ Improves Moisture Retention: Especially beneficial in sandy soils that drain quickly and clay soils that
become compacted.
■ Reduces Runoff & Erosion: Biochar helps stabilize soils, preventing nutrient and sediment loss during
heavy rains.
3. Carbon Sequestration & Climate Benefits
■ Long -Term Carbon Storage: Acts as a stable carbon sink, locking away carbon for centuries.
■ Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Helps mitigate methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions
from soils, particularly in agriculture.
4. Agricultural Productivity
■ Increases Crop Yields: Improves soil fertility and nutrient availability, leading to higher yields for crops
such as corn, wheat, and soybeans.
■ Enhances Fertilizer Efficiency: Reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers, cutting costs and
e nvironmental impact.
5. Compost & Manure Management
■ Improves Compost Quality: Biochar mixed with compost accelerates decomposition, retains
n utrients, and reduces odor.
■ Reduces Nutrient Loss in Manure: Helps capture nitrogen, preventing ammonia volatilization and
n itrate leaching.
6. Remediation & Pollution Control
■ Adsorbs Heavy Metals & Toxins: Can help clean up contaminated soils by binding pollutants.
■ Reduces Agricultural Runoff Pollution: Captures excess phosphorus and nitrogen, preventing
waterway eutrophication.
Page 9 of 9
ResearchGate
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312453546
All biochars are not created equal and how to tell them apart
Article • January 2009
CITATIONS
35
4 authors, including:
Hugh Mclaughlin
NextChar, LLC
9 PUBLICATIONS 109 CITATIONS
READS
93
Frank Shields
Keith Day Company, Inc.
5 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Hugh Mclaughlin on 14 August 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
All Biochars are Not Created Equal,
and How to Tell Them Apart
Version 2 (October 2009), which supercedes the digital reprint issued at the
North American Biochar Conference, Boulder, CO — August 2009
Hugh McLaughlin, PhD, PE(1 ), Paul S. Anderson, PhD(2),
Frank E. Shields(3) and Thomas B. Reed, PhD(4)
(1) Corresponding Author: Director of Biocarbon Research, Alterna Biocarbon Inc.(hmclaughlin@alternabiocarbon.com)
(2) "Dr. TLUD" - V.P of Chip Energy Inc., Specialist in micro -gasification (psanders@ilstu.edu)
(3) Director of Biofuel & Ag Related Research for Control Laboratories Inc. (frank@compostlab.com)
(4) Chairman and Chief Scientist, Biomass Energy Foundation (tombreed2009@gmail.com)
ABSTRACT
The use of charcoal as a soil amendment and for CO2 sequestration raises many
questions about the characteristics of those "biochars" and their impacts on soils
and organisms. This paper reviews and revises the analyses of the principal
characteristics used to distinguish biochars, and presents a small survey of
measured properties. Explicit terminology is proposed about "resident and mobile
carbon and other matter" in biochars intended for addition to soils rather than for
use as a fuel. Specific data are presented for commercial lump charcoals and
Top -Lit UpDraft (TLUD) charcoals. Easy methods for informal testing of chars
are presented to determine several key biochar characteristics. The major
conclusions are: 1) Currently available biochars vary significantly in key
properties, 2) Great attention should be taken to know the characteristics of any
charcoals being added to soils, and 3) Reports of the responses (whether favorable
or unfavorable) of plants and soils to biochar applications are of questionable
value without corresponding knowledge of the characteristics of the applied
biochars.
1. INTRODUCTION
Biochar is a term used to designate charcoal or biocarbon destined for addition to soils. As such,
biochar is both a class of materials capable of sequestering carbon (CO2 equivalents) in soils and
an ambitious goal of improving long-term soil productivity. Soil improvements attributed to the
1
addition of biochar include increased moisture retention, improved air permeability, elevated
cation exchange capacity, increased buffering of soluble organic carbon, and synergistic
interactions with soil microbial populations.
With many potential raw materials (called source feed -stocks) and multiple positive attributes,
biochar remains an enigma. Its specific desirable properties are subject to debate and are the
basis for ambitious ongoing research programs on what is important to the plants and soils. The
goal of this paper is to review the key attributes of biochar and discuss the options for measuring
said properties in any specific char that is being considered for addition to soil.
Potential biochar sources include conventional lump charcoal, residual char from open biomass
burning (including forest fires), char residuals from gasifying stoves and furnaces, byproducts or
co -products from fast and slow pyrolysis technologies, and carbonized biomass and agricultural
residues manufactured in dedicated processes for specific feed -stocks, including chicken litter
and bio-solids.
An informal but fairly exhaustive survey was made of readily available chars, and their
differentiating chemical properties were measured. The trends and scatter in those measurements
are discussed. Finally, options for informally testing candidate chars are presented. The
unavoidable conclusion is that one knows what one is getting in a specific biochar only after the
actual properties are measured, and never just because a supplier is claiming a product is suitable
for use as a biochar.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. What Biochar is Not
Much of the current understanding of the properties of biochar is derived from studies centered
on the phenomenon known as "Terra Preta" in the Amazonian rainforests. Unfortunately,
because of the anthropogenic nature of the ancient Terra Preta sites, it is difficult to reconstruct
the causes and effects that created the enduring soil productivity that modern biochar seeks to
replicate and possibly improve. However, some insights can be gleaned from the properties of
carbon -rich substances and their observed effect in soils.
Biochar is carbon -rich, containing significant fractions of amorphous graphitic domains (as in
"tiny pockets") and additional organic carbon properties discussed below. The graphitic domains
within the biochar have been documented to be stable in the soil for millennia, including samples
isolated from historic Terra Preta sites. Although one might postulate that the presence of the
graphitic carbon atoms results in the unique biochar properties, the answer is "likely not." If the
cause of improved soils were merely the presence of graphitic carbon atoms, then "carbon black"
or "tire black" materials would perform similarly in the soil — which has never been observed.
Neither have beneficial effects of coal residues in soil been observed in places where coal dust
has been spilt over the ages.
2
Biochar also has properties and molecular structures that resemble activated carbon, a common
industrial material that possesses unique adsorption properties for vapor and liquid phase organic
molecules. As will be discussed, adsorption properties are believed to play a significant role in
biochar phenomena, but adsorption effects alone do not account for the composite of observed
biochar attributes. If adsorption alone were the dictating phenomenon, then powdered activated
carbon would be the ultimate soil amendment — which is also not observed.
For example, Norit, an international activated carbon company, does market a product known as
"GroSafe", which is a fairly typical powdered activated carbon product (see http://www.norit-
americas.com/pdf/GroSafe rev4.pdf). However, the technical literature explains its role in the
soil to be for removing toxins, such as herbicides. As such, powdered activated carbon may be
helpful in those locations where toxicity is present in the soil, but its efficacy does not extend to
the other biochar attributes.
Similar logic can be applied to many common carbon -rich substances, such as shredded tires and
pulverized plastics, etc. — and none of them exhibit any properties even vaguely similar to those
of biochar. To the contrary, detrimental impacts on plants and soils are often observed. As such,
little can be inferred in desirable biochar properties by observations of other natural and synthetic
carbon -rich materials.
2.2. What Biochar is
Without intending to make a rigid definition, biochar can be broadly characterized as "thermally -
modified biomass". This description is more of an acknowledgement of how the vast majority of
existing biochar found in soils was formed than an actual requirement to qualify a material as
biochar.
The thermal modification of biomass is significant because it results in a pivotal property of
biochar — the ability to persist in the soil by not being susceptible to biological decay. Persistence
basically makes biochar a soil "catalyst", in the sense of facilitating reactions beneficial to the
soil dynamics, and not a consumed raw material. Soil raw materials are substances like fertilizers
and other components that are either assimilated by living systems (plants, soil microbes) or
gradually transformed, such as in the case of the breakdown of peat moss, compost or manure in
soils.
In the absence of thermal modification, essentially all forms of biomass (plants, animals and
microbes alike) are 100% biodegradable. This conclusion is based on the impossibility of the
inverse: that some portion of biomass is not biodegradable. If a fraction of biomass were not
biodegradable, no matter how de minimus, it would accumulate over the course of millions of
years and easily be detected, perhaps even overwhelming the masses of renewable but
biodegradable biomass.
It is important to recognize that biomass and biodegradability exist and operate in a relatively
narrow temperature range — roughly 50 degrees Celsius on either side of room temperature.
Below that temperature range, biological processes grind to a halt, and above that temperature
range, the biological organic complexes thermally denature and lose their ability to function.
3
Within this biologically active temperature range, unmodified biomass is in a constant state of
flux — growing, drying, and being recycled. Essentially every repetitive, biologically -created
chemical structure and bond system present in living matter can be broken down and reused by
other living species. This is why thermal modification, as in the conversion of biomass into
charcoal, is so critical for providing persistence of carbon in the soil by inhibiting its biological
degradation.
The specific thermal modification that converts biomass into biochar can be viewed from two
closely related perspectives called "pyrolysis" and "carbonization". The pyrolysis perspective
focuses on the chemical breakdowns that result in the liberation of pyrolytic gases. The
carbonization perspective focuses on the chemical build-ups of the carbon atoms into solid
structures. The bulk of pyrolysis and carbonization reactions occur in the temperature range
from about 200 to 500 degrees C. One can think of pyrolysis and carbonization as simultaneous
physical -chemical processes, changing the biomass into pyrolytic gases and charcoal.
At sufficient temperatures, generally above 300 degrees C, carbonization modifies the chemical
bonds within the remaining solid such that they are less likely to be consumed as foods by living
systems. The chemical bond modifications consist of dehydration, conversion of aliphatic bonds
into aromatic bonds, and the consolidation of those aromatic bonds into local graphene
complexes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene). Living systems use enzymes to facilitate
individual chemical reactions, and enzymes are very specific to the unique structure of the
chemical bond being transformed. Carbonization randomizes the chemical bonds, creates locally
varying molecular structures, and creates a much larger percentage of stable graphene chemical
bonds. This diversity of chemical structures and overall greater bond stability thwarts the ability
of living systems to supply appropriate enzymes to transform the carbonized bond structures. In
a sense, carbonization converts biomass into a new form, termed biochar, which is more difficult
to digest for the microbes - especially if there are sources of more palatable uncarbonized
biomass available.
This raises a question: If a portion of carbonized biomass is immune to biological decay and if
natural forest fires generate additional carbonized biomass on an ongoing basis, why isn't the
world chock-full of accumulated persistent biochar? The basic reason is that there are very slow,
non -biological, ambient temperature reactions between carbonized biomass and atmospheric
oxygen, which slowly degrade exposed graphene bonds over the course of thousands to millions
of years. As a result, long-term stable fossil carbon reservoirs of oil and coal are only found
under anoxic conditions, buried deep in the earth and far from any oxygen. Even at ambient
temperatures, oxygen is reactive with all carbon -carbon and carbon -hydrogen bonds, given
enough time.
3. CONVERTING BIOMASS TO BIOCHAR
Before delving into the qualities and measurable properties of available biochars, it is useful to
briefly review the conversion process that transforms biomass into biochar. Since we are
interested in the biochar, the residual solid, we will focus on the carbonization reactions. The
4
carbonization process will be described for the most common application, which is the
conversion of wood -derived ligno-cellulosic biomass into charcoal, but the carbonization
reactions apply to any carbon -rich previously -living material.
Woods is primarily a combination of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin, with trace resins and
inorganic salts. While accurate, this description under -represents the molecular -level complexity
of the plant structure, as depicted in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: PHYSICAL AND MICROSCOPIC STRUCUTURE OF WOOD
Clain
! —1'00 ar)
Wall cell layer
Wood Physical Structure
lignin cellulose .Q resinc-(9)A
1Psub1/4‘'-i
hemicclMu9nsc
hydro praline rich glyco proteins
Wood Microscopic Structure
From: http://www.techtp.com/Torrefaction for High Quality Wood Pellets.pdf, page 7 of 36
During carbonization, the various components of the biomass are modified by chemical
transformations that occur within specific temperature ranges. All of these transformations are
basically initiated by the instability of the individual chemical bonds within the biomass at the
elevated temperatures involved in carbonization. Realizing that living things spend their entire
formative and functional lives in a very narrow temperature range, it is not surprising there
occurs a wholesale rearrangement of biomass as the temperature rises significantly above
ambient. Consider the dramatic changes that occur when cooking an egg that becomes hard-
boiled by simply raising the biomass to only 100 degrees Celsius for a short period time without
the loss of moisture from inside the shell. Analogously, but at much higher temperatures,
carbonization takes that thermal transformation process of biomass through many phases, as
shown in Figure 2.
As can be seen in Figure 2, all three of the major components of biomass (hemicellulose, lignin
and cellulose) are thermally transformed between 200 and 300 degrees Celsius. Figure 2 depicts
the principal decomposition reactions, where the individual constituents of the biomass
5
"devolatilize" and release a mixture of gases, known as volatiles, and "carbonize" to form a more
carbon -rich residual solid, which is the char.
FIGURE 2: THERMAL MODIFICATIONS OF WOOD CONSTITUENTS
250
200
-150
N� rni col I ulc ssel,
Extensive
Devolatillisation
a n rd
carbon innfic-in
fLN
Limited
davob at i I visa ti o in
and
tatboilisatiore 40)
dapolyrne rlsation
and
r-et+arndentation
(C)
drying
Harnlael'iLila sa
Ugnhn
C
glass transition;
softening. (e
-
Cellulose
Cellulose
300
250
200
150
1 0O
0
From: http://www.techtp.com/Torrefaction for High Quality Wood Pellets.pdf, page 9 of 36
With terms like depolymerization and devolatilization, the molecular -level science may seem
much more complicated than the everyday applications of the phenomena. Figure 3 shows a
simple example of the entire carbonization process — the burning of a wooden match. As the
flame progresses along the wooden match, it heats the wood and drives off the volatiles, leaving
the carbonized char as the residual solid.
FIGURE 3: A MATCH CONVERTS WOOD INTO CHAR AS IT BURNS
4QQG c
1500° C
1000'C IN
6000 C
1 aN�f / + a
400° C /7%!;'
Charcoal
r
s.
16
Air diffusion in plume
r'
Combustion
Products
Combustion of
gas, tar, and soot
Gases from
soot
Oil vapors crack to
hydrocarbons and tar
Oil vapor and gas
tEptm of wood
Wood
Another common example of carbonization is the burning of dry wood, such as campfires -
especially if the fire is quenched with water, saving the glowing charcoal from being turned to
ash. A more dramatic example is the "toasting of marshmallows — gone wrong", where the
roasting marshmallow catches fire and converts [carbonizes] into a residual mass of crispy char
while the soft white center generates a fireball of volatiles that rapidly burn in the available
oxygen from the air. Note that in all of the above cases, a solid charcoal remains, meaning that
the reactions of the residual graphitic carbon atoms with oxygen, called char -gasification, is not
taking place. If char -gasification occurs, the char is converted to ash and the carbon atoms are
converted to gases, mainly carbon dioxide and lesser amounts of carbon monoxide.
4. DISSECTING BIOCHAR INTO PROXIMATES AND ULTIMATES
4.1. Overview
One of the challenges in characterizing biochar as a class of materials is that it is new and unique
in the world of material testing. Until biochar is understood sufficiently to establish the hierarchy
of preferred properties, it will have to be characterized by established tests that were developed
for other materials. One such standard set of tests is the ASTM procedures intended for the
characterization of solid fuels, especially coals. These procedures can be applied to charcoal that
is intended for burning and such testing yields appropriate measurements, as they relate to the
burning of charcoal as a fuel.
Two popular ASTM tests for coals, known as Proximate and Ultimate Analyses, measure how a
specific coal or coal -like sample will perform when utilized in a solid fuel combusting process.
Figure 4 summarizes the basic breakdown of the Proximate and Ultimate Analyses as developed
for the characterization of coals.
The principal shortcoming of using coal characterizations for biochar comes down to different
destinations for the two materials. Coal is a fuel, and the ASTM coal tests measure properties
that predict performance when used as fuel, especially the amount of available thermal energy.
Biochar is a soil amendment that will not be subjected to high heat. As such, the coal tests are
measuring properties of the biochar that would be relevant were it to be burned like coal, which
is unlikely. Still, the basic partitioning of properties associated with coal analyses has merit in
differentiating biochars, subject to some minor modification of the testing procedures and
associated interpretation of the testing results, as will be discussed.
FIGURE 4: PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF COALS
Proximate Analysis
Determines (on an as -received basis)
• Moisture content
• Volatile matter (gases released when coal is
heated).
• Fixed carbon (solid fuel left after the volatile
matter is driven off, but not just carbon).
• Ash (impurities consisting of silica, iron, alumina,
and other incombustible matter).
Moisture
Ash
ti
Fixed Carbon �1\
Volatile\
Matter
i‘i
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Ash
Sulfur
Source: U.S. DOE - EIA, Coal Data: A Reference, 1989.
Ultimate Analysis
Determines the amount of carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur.
• Btu - Heating value is determined in
terms of Btu both on an as -received
basis (including moisture) and on a
dry basis.
• The carbon is from both the volatile
and fixed matter, not differentiated.
From: http://www.coaleducation.org/ky_coal_facts/coal_resources/coal_properties.htm
4.2. Revising Testing Conditions to facilitate the Interpretation of the Data
When coal is combusted, the incoming pulverized coal fuel enters the combustion chamber and
virtually instantly is heated to over 1000 degrees Celsius. In that environment, the coal powder
immediately dehydrates, releases all the volatiles that will vaporize at 1000 degrees Celsius, and
the remaining mass consolidates into volatile -free "char" particles. The volatiles burn rapidly in
vapor -phase reactions and the char particles burn like miniature charcoal briquettes, where the
oxygen in the combustion air reacts on the surfaces of the particles in a diffusion -controlled
regime often called "glowing combustion". Furthermore, any ash remaining after coal
combustion has been exposed to temperatures as high as 2000 degrees Celsius, and never less
than 1000 degrees Celsius.
As such, the coal tests seek to partition the composite coal into moisture, "volatile matter" that
vaporizes as the mass is heated up to 1000 degrees Celsius, "fixed carbon" representing the
amount of incoming coal that converts into char and burns as such, and ash, in a form
representative of what will remain after the combustion process. For these reasons, the volatile
matter test heats the coal up to 950 degrees Celsius in an inert atmosphere and any matter that
exits is considered volatile matter. The ash is liberated/generated by exposing the coal to air at
8
800 — 900 degrees Celsius until all the available carbon is reacted to carbon dioxide and any
metal salts are converted to the corresponding metal oxides. The resulting ash accurately
represents the ash that exits the coal combustion process under conditions of complete carbon
burnout. It should be noted that the "Fixed Carbon" portion of the coal proximate analysis is not
pure carbon; it is whatever is not ash and does not volatilize at 950 degrees Celsius.
Coal proximate analyses are readily available from commercial laboratories and not too difficult
to perform in any lab with a muffle furnace, appropriate crucibles and an analytical balance.
Unfortunately, the partitioning of a biochar sample into coal proximate analysis fractions does
not provide much insight into how biochar actually partitions when used as a soil amendment,
that is, when the char is subjected to temperatures and conditions that are encountered in soils.
Therefore, we propose and present below a modified thermal analysis methods to yield more
insight into the metrics relevant to distinguishing one biochar from another. The modifications
are adjustments of the temperatures utilized during testing to be more aligned with the
temperatures encountered during pyrolysis and carbonization. The specific modifications
presented here are not cast in stone and may well be further manipulated as better insights into
pivotal biochar properties are developed. At this juncture, we are trying new things and seeing
what can be measured and subsequently interpreted.
To avoid confusion with the standard ASTM tests for coal, we call our methods "Modified
Proximate Analysis" and "Modified Ultimate Analysis". When these analyses were performed
and reported for this paper, we made the following changes in the analytical protocol:
1. The term "Fixed" is changed to be "Resident." Resident does not mean absolute
permanence in the soils, but half-life of over 500 years seems to justify the "resident"
terminology. Others have used the word "Recalcitrant," but that does not have a specific
connotation and seems a bit esoteric.
2. The term "Volatile" is changed to be "Mobile," as in "being able to be removed, but not
necessarily being made into a gas". Mobile means a lack of permanence, as in the case of
hydrocarbons that can be digested by microorganisms. Others have used the word
"Labile," but that has the same communication issues as "Recalcitrant".
3. The grouping "Fixed Carbon" was renamed "Resident Matter." The difference between
"fixed" and "resident" has been explained above. The usage of the term "matter" is to
allow a partitioning in the ultimate analysis test of the carbon fraction separate from the
non -carbon fraction of the resident matter. In summary, Resident Carbon plus Resident H
& O (plus typically inconsequential other chemical species) is equal to the total Resident
Matter (formerly grouped as Fixed Carbon in the terminology of proximate coal analyses).
4. Similarly, "Mobile Matter" is the sum of "Mobile Carbon" and "Mobile H & O."
5. The threshold temperature for vaporizing the Mobile Matter away from the Resident
Matter has been lowered to 450 degrees Celsius.
9
6. The ashing temperature, in the presence of air, is performed at 500-550 Celsius. This
temperature range produces a Mobile Matter fraction that minimizes additional generation
of volatiles by the incremental carbonization of the biochar sample, which occurs
whenever a char is heated above the highest treatment temperature (HTT) that the char has
previously experienced during production. The lower ashing temperature also avoids
converting the alkaline hydroxides and carbonates into metal oxides, thereby potentially
providing a more representative sample of the ash present in the biochar sample.
The drying of the biochar samples remained the same as in the coal assay, with drying in
the presence of air at 105 Celsius until stable sample weight is obtained.
4.3 Test Results Using the Modified Proximate Analysis
Nineteen representative biomass and biochars were tested with the Modified Proximate Analysis
and the results are shown in Figure 5.
FIGURE 5: MODIFIED PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF CHARS
300
0
a.
E
cu
V
y-
0
C
al
CD 150
v
0
a.
s
a)
250
200
100 C
50
�❑ Water (gm/100 gms dry biochar)
DAsh
■ Mobile Matter
• Resident Matter
II I
w -,`A-' /\\ \ jl,,'"�all,,,0• rat ��*1\
O o° �t
r or
r,� , r` . rte* Gr �•c••
eow G�� °�t
o• oe
te•C\t
Cs G cc? .j
C�r o `` 2r o
im` Off` �tc�tt•
''t'4�� rte ` �e �?�r# o C',r apt • O \O ���
es- &
cc., t Q Oek
to
4 .6 cob- ,oO O
2�
10
The sample set used for Figure 5 is not comprehensive of the universe of potential biochars and
the data is from a single measurement of each sample. But the data serve to demonstrate the
diversity of measured properties. Figure 5 has the main constituents of chars normalized to
provide the portions on a dry sample basis, with residual water presented above the 100% level.
Residual water is not an intrinsic component of a char, but is due to post -carbonization practices
such as cooling with water addition or storage and transport conditions that allow hydroscopic
chars to acquire moisture.
The chars in Figure 5 appear in groups broadly representative of the major types of raw materials
and chars. The three entries (A, B, C) on the left of Figure 5 are pre -carbonization materials and
reveal very high mobile ("volatile") and corresponding low resident ("fixed") portions. The five
grass pellet and straw chars contain elevated levels of ash associated with the potassium and
phosphorus typical of grasses as compared to wood -derived chars. The two gasifier chars (I and
J) reflect the specific conditions of the gasifier operation, with more aggressive conditions
leading to higher ash levels as more of the carbon portion of the biomass is reacted away [char -
gasified] into the vapor phase. The three middle chars (K, L, M) are from various raw materials
and processes and reflect the specifics of the individual manufacturers. The six wood -derived
biocarbons on the right are from a single carbonization process, so the variability is associated
mostly with the source biomass. Wood -derived chars generally have low levels of ash, although
elevated ash may appear in the char if the wood is contaminated with soil during harvesting
and/or transportation to the biocarbon conversion facility. In general, the specifics of an
individual char derive from a combination of the properties of the starting biomass and
carbonization conditions, with most factors being within the control of the various biochar
producers.
4.4. Test Results Using the Modified Ultimate Analysis
The focus of ultimate analysis testing is to measure the individual chemical levels in the
composite sample to gain further insight into specific properties that are of interest during the use
of the substance. For coal, that means measuring the elements shown in the second half of Figure
4, with the goal of calculating the heating value or total energy content of the coal. The name
"ultimate" is somewhat of an historical misnomer, because in a world prior to expensive
analytical instruments, "ultimate analysis" techniques were much more work than the "proximate
analysis" and were considered to be about as much as could be known about a sample of coal.
The Modified Ultimate Analysis of biochars builds off the same analytical measurements as for
coal, but since biochar is not intended for use as a fuel, we need to rethink what we are learning
from the partitioning of the char into individual elements or chemical classes. Furthermore,
depending on the source of the biomass for the char, there are some chemical species,
particularly sulfur, that are unlikely to be present at significant levels in the resulting char, but
are a major concern in coal.
For this paper, a conventional analytical instrument, a LECO Corporation CN2000, was used to
combust a small dried sample of char and to measure the level of carbon dioxide and nitrogen
oxides in the off gases. By calibrating the instrument on known standards, the instrument
calculates the weight percentages of carbon and nitrogen in the original sample. By coupling the
11
ultimate analysis with the proximate analysis, after subtracting out the moisture and ash levels in
the sample, one can determine the relative portions of carbon, nitrogen and, by difference, any
remaining organic fraction in both the mobile (volatile) and resident (fixed) matter. The
remaining organic fraction represents the sum of the hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur in the sample.
Since sulfur is expected to be present at negligible levels, the organic fraction is interpreted to
represent the sum of the weight of hydrogen and oxygen in the sample. For clarity, it is labeled
as "Resident H & O" and "Mobile H & O" in the figures.
In addition to low sulfur levels, most chars exhibit low nitrogen levels, attributed to the loss of
nitrogen from the char as either ammonia or oxides of nitrogen during the carbonization process.
The figures do include "Resident N" and "Mobile N" measurements, but they are usually so
minor that it is hard to visualize and can normally be neglected or included in the "H & O"
portion of biochars derived from relatively clean biomass sources.
As such, the major partitioning that emerges in the biochar "Modified Ultimate Analysis" is to
divide the char sample into 1) the "Resident Carbon" portion of the Resident Matter, 2) the
hydrogen and oxygen portion of the Resident Matter, called "Resident H & O", and the
analogous 3) Mobile Carbon and 4) Mobile H & O portions of the Mobile Matter. Since the
proximate analysis isolates a pure ash sample, it is also possible to evaluate 5) the acid -soluble
ash and 6) acid -insoluble ash by acidifying the acid and recovering the acid -insoluble fraction.
7) Resident N and 8) Mobile N can also be detected, but are often in amounts too small to be of
significance in plant and soil science.
The ultimate analyses of the nineteen samples from Figure 5 are shown in Figure 6. It should be
kept in mind that Figures 5 and 6 represent a very small set of samples, with only one or two
samples representing whole classes of chars. As such, the reader is cautioned from drawing
overly broad conclusions from such a limited number of actual analytical results. However, it is
clear that the various components of the char samples can be dissected into a finer group of
chemical partitions by use of "modified proximate and ultimate analyses" evolved from the
analytical methods for coal.
A word of caution is necessary with respect to the ash levels indicated in Figures 5 and 6. Figure
6 shows the total ash of Figure 5 broken into two fractions (acid soluble and non -soluble), and
the acid soluble fraction is always the majority of the total ash from uncontaminated wood. One
needs to question the origin of the acid soluble ash fraction, especially in biochar derived from
clean wood. Most of the ash in clean wood is made up of phytoliths, which are silica that has
gone up into the tree to provide structure and support, and cations (sodium, potassium, calcium
and magnesium) that form neutral salts with available anions, such as bicarbonates, carbonates,
bisulfates, sul fate s, sulfates, hydroxyl groups, etc.
The concern is that the ashing conditions used in the analytical procedure may convert the
cations from one salt form to another, whereby changing the molecular weight of the salt and
weight contributed to the ash content of the biochar sample. For example, sodium hydroxide
(molecular weight 40) could be converted to sodium carbonate (molecular weight 84) under the
conditions of the ashing test. Thus, any sodium hydroxide would generate a weight of ash a little
over twice the actual weight of sodium hydroxide in the original biochar.
12
O
a
E
Cu
N
V
'r -
O
IS
C
O
V
Sn
0
a
s
O)
FIGURE 6: MODIFIED ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF CHARS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% milli III m
• • e CI 4/ f< 0 Se > * \/ . fr O 4q4 O' 4Ce. eS
),t r 4ctV
$S'7
�C,r�O C,tkti\ �` C,,r �,r kC' �C, :ell •etOOkt%e'% �tb- etP tb• •`oU Q� ���.`oc, .`oo .`�Q'
Qv Qv �� �t �� ?otJ/f/c
0, Q,t �� ��
C�� C7� ��� � sci �
■ Resident Carbon O Resident H & 0 O Resident Nitrogen ■ Mobile Carbon
O Mobile H & 0 ■ Mobile Nitrogen DAsh (acid soluble) ® Ash (non -soluble)
As such, it is recommended that the absolute magnitude of ash measurements in biochars be
taken with the proverbial "grain of salt", especially the acid soluble fractions. Higher ash levels
generally mean that higher levels of non -organic "something" are present in the char. What those
ash constituents are, and whether they could impact local soil conditions, needs to be understood
before utilization as a biochar.
We suspect that much of what the tests show to be ash is actually closely held in the resident
matter, therefore behaving in soils quite differently if applied as part of the biochar versus being
applied as loose ash, with potentially significantly different rates of release and consequences
over time on the soil, plants and microorganisms.
Similarly, the pH of an ash sample can reflect the conditions of the ash formation during the
analyses more than the actual pH of the original char at carbonization temperatures. Furthermore,
the pH of fresh biochar samples may not accurately reflect their pH impact in the soils,
especially after the biochar has equilibrated with atmospheric carbon dioxide, which converts
many of the alkaline hydroxides into corresponding carbonates and shifts the pH lower.
13
5. ADDITIONAL PIVOTAL BIOCHAR PROPERTIES AND ANALYTICAL TESTS
Two additional biochar properties are believed to be pivotal in the unique properties of biochar
in the soil; these will be discussed at length.
The two remaining biochar attributes are a challenge both to measure analytically and to
understand their role in the soil. They are known as Cation Exchange Capacity, or CEC, and
Adsorption Capacity. Conceptually, the former is the extent to which biochar has ion exchange
properties and the later is the extent that biochar has activated carbon properties. Many biochars
exhibit significant and measurable amounts of CEC and adsorption capacity, and these properties
may lie at the heart of the unique and dynamic role of biochar in the soil.
5.1. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)
Cation Exchange Capacity takes a sample of char and converts all the cations to one form, then
displaces them with another cation, and finally quantifies the displaced cations to measure the
CEC. The CEC method used for this paper consisted of the following procedure:
A sample of dried char is shaken/centrifuged/drained three times with sodium acetate
solution, then shaken/centrifuged/drained with 2-propanol three times. The alcohol rinse
removes excess cations present in solution, but not bound to the char. The sodium -loaded
char is then shaken/ centrifuged/drained with ammonia acetate solution three times. The
total solution from the three ammonia acetate rinses is measured for sodium level and the
CEC calculated in milli -equivalents per 100 grams of dry starting char.
CEC is not a very common analytical test and exact procedures vary from lab to lab. As such,
this analytical test will benefit from additional methods -development work. Better and more
standardized CEC methods, specific for biochar, are anticipated in the future.
Further complicating predicting the roll of CEC in a specific biochar is the documented
development of additional CEC within the soil over time and depending on soil conditions (see
"Oxidation of black carbon by biotic and abiotic processes", C.H. Cheng et al. / Organic
Geochemistry 37 (2006) 1477-1488). As such, it is likely that measuring the CEC of a char
determines the current level of the CEC property at the time of measurement, but does not
indicate what additional CEC may come into existence in the future.
5.2. Adsorption Capacity
Adsorption Capacity is another property that is poorly understood in biochar. One characteristic
of the adsorption capacity phenomenon in chars is shown in Figure 7, where a sequence of chars,
carbonized over a range of Higher Treatment Temperatures (HTT), shows a dramatic variation of
measured BET surface area. [Note to readers: BET stands for Brunauer-Emmett-Teller, the
three scientists that published the method in 1938. Although the BET measurement has some
limitations that we discuss shortly, it is a useful measurement for this initial discussion of surface
areas being impacted by increasing carbonization temperatures. Furthermore, the BET method is
the historic measurement of surface area that appears frequently in the literature.]
14
FIGURE 7: VARIATION OF CHAR BET SURFACE AREA WITH HTT
450
400
11
350
300
250
U
ct
t -H
U)
200
U
AC 150
c 100
50
0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Terminal pyrolysis temperature(C)
From http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/files/TrainingManual.pdf - bamboo charcoal
The qualitative phenomenon shown in Figure 7 has been confirmed for many chars and always
occurs. Individual chars will exhibit a quantitatively different absolute surface area at any given
temperature, but the characteristic rise and fall is highly reproducible. The development of
surface area above 300 Celsius is attributed to the formation of localized graphene regions within
the char as the residual solid becomes progressively more carbon -rich. The decline of surface
area above 700 Celsius is attributed to "calcination" [high temperature treatment] of the
developed graphene plates, resulting in the coalescence of the individual graphene regions into
larger, denser, but less porous amorphous graphitic carbon complexes — similar to the char
formed en route to making activated carbon.
Because surface area and adsorption capacity are properties of the graphene portion of the char
itself, the property is formed at the time the char is created and is unlikely to further develop in
the char when placed into soils. The adsorption capacity of a char can deteriorate after creation,
perhaps by having something either occupy the adsorption sites or physically blocking access to
the adsorption capacity by coating the outside of the char particles. As such, measuring the
adsorption capacity of a freshly made char yields the upper ceiling for the life of the char with
respect to this property.
In terms of what biochar contributes to soil dynamics, adsorption capacity is believed to
contribute the bulk of the moisture retention and most of the capacity to buffer soluble organic
compounds. . As such, these characteristics may be pivotal in the stimulation of the microbial
populations in the soil by stabilizing the minimum moisture and carbon source levels in the soil
15
and elevating microbial survival rates during times of drought and shortages of other soluble
carbon sources.
Adsorption capacity is measured by "challenging" the char with a known substance, usually an
organic vapor, and measuring the extent of uptake of the challenge gas under controlled
conditions. The test is not a routine analytical method and the closest historic analytical method
is the BET surface area assay. Unfortunately, the BET method is performed under conditions far
removed from what occurs in the soil, with the BET method measuring the adsorption of
nitrogen vapor in a partial vacuum at liquid nitrogen temperatures (minus 196 degrees Celsius).
As such, BET measurements may not accurately predict, or even differentiate, the adsorption
capacity of chars in typical biochar applications.
The adsorption capacity test used for this paper is known as "GACS" or Gravimetric Adsorption
Capacity Scan. The GACS method is similar to another esoteric method known as the GRPD test
for activated carbon, which was developed, in turn, from a test known as TACTIC (developed by
Calgon Carbon Corporation to study activated carbons.) The GACS assay is performed on a
custom-built modified TGA (Thermo-Gravimetric Analyzer) and measures all the adsorption
behavior of chars and activated carbons over a wide range of adsorption conditions. For the
purposes of comparing chars, it is sufficient to subject all chars to the same adsorption conditions
and measure the extent of adsorption.
For this paper, the standard conditions were the weight percent uptake of R134a (1,1,1,2 tetra-
fluoro-ethane — the refrigerant used in automobile air conditioners) by a dried sample of char at
either 100 degrees Celsius or 125 degrees Celsius. The assay is basically a means of comparing
relative adsorption capacities within a group of chars. GACS measurements may become a
useful standard test for biochar classification, but currently there are fewer than ten such
instruments in the world, so it does lack facile accessibility. Interested individuals are invited to
contact the Corresponding Author for additional information about the GACS assay.
Figure 8 shows the CEC and adsorption capacity of eleven chars and two wood -samples
previously discussed in conjunction with Figures 5 and 6. Some samples from Figure 5 and 6 did
not have both the CEC and adsorption capacity measurements available and those samples are
not included in Figure 8. The CEC data is shown on Figure 8 at 10% of the measured CEC level
to allow a common y-axis for both CEC in units of meq/100 grams and adsorption capacity in
units of weight percent R134a @ 100 degrees Celsius.
Figure 8 shows significant variation of both CEC and adsorption capacity in the selected eleven
chars and two woods. All the samples tested showed good levels of CEC, but considering how
few samples there are, one should not jump to conclusions about what does and doesn't lead to
CEC in a char.
16
FIGURE 8: CEC AND ADSORPTION CAPACITY OF CHARS
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
O10% of CEC in meq/100 grams
■ Adsorption Capacity (wt% @ 100C)
�
G \ \. + O
°�@ �<�� '` �G`�'ebt ��' ` � C t e
ow �o `ti ,Qo
Q° °i``0 C,r� C�'�� C.r�or cy °� t���. QG•�oG� 0.(‘, oo�� et,. 40) <4
l. qt.
e co a� I
`ate or �� °a
�ca� ��� mac' Q• O Q;g C' i0 i
Adsorption capacity showed more dramatic trends, with the two pre -carbonization materials
having little or no adsorption capacity, as would be expected from the trend of the low -
temperature side of Figure 7. The adsorption capacity of the chars in Figure 8 seems to reflect the
specifics of different carbonization process more than the specific starting material. This is not
unexpected considering the carbonization process creates the internal structures in the starting
biomass as the volatiles are driven off and the solid char is formed. Furthermore, of the two
examples of gasifier chars, Gasifier Char #1 used woody biomass as the fuel for gasification and
represents a wood -gasifier char, whereas, Gasifier Char #2 was residual char from a char -
gasifier. Of the chars shown in Figure 8, letters H, L, 0, P, Q & S were all produced in the same
carbonization process and seem to share uniformly elevated levels of adsorption capacity.
From this discussion in Section 5, we conclude that future research about CEC and adsorption
capacity could indeed be fertile ground [pun intended].
17
6. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF BIOCHAR
6.1. Overview
Potential biochar sources include conventional lump charcoal, char residuals from gasifying
stoves and furnaces, by-products from fast and slow pyrolysis technologies, residual char from
open biomass burning (including forest fires), and carbonized biomass and agricultural residues
(including chicken litter and biosolids) manufactured in dedicated processes. Figure 9
summarizes a few of the many characteristics that can be used to classify biochars.
FIGURE 9. Table
of Potential Sources
of Biochar
Type
Issue
Incidental
Gasifier
Other Modern Industrial
Processes
Traditional
Application
Fire Residual
Lump
Charcoal
Biomass to
Energy
By -Product or
Co -product
Sole product
Description
(Highly
generalized)
Fireplace
Forest
Incineration
fire
Primitive
Modem
kilns
kilns
Downdraft
Updraft
Top -Lit
(TLUD)
UpDraft
Traditional
Specialized
Fast Pyrolysis
Bio-Gas
Oil
retort
retort
& Bio-
Biocarbon for energy
Biochar for soil
Oxygen
Present
during
carbonization
Oxic -
Uncontrolled
Oxic or Anoxic
Oxic
Anoxic
(usually)
Anoxic or Oxic
Commercially
available for
biochar?
No.
destructive.
Basically
Yes. Established
product
cooking
— for
Biochar
is NOT
primary
objective.
usually
the
Biochar
is NOT
primary
initial
usually
in
Initial efforts
specific for making
the
goal
efforts
biocarbon
It is not the intent of this section to make judgments about what constitutes the good and bad
characteristics of biochars, nor to say which methods of pyrolysis are better than others. Our
purpose is to alert the readers to the fact that fundamental differences exist between biochars
because of the pyrolysis methods, even when the starting biomass is exactly the same.
At industrial scales, unavailable to average people, technologies have existed for decades for the
purpose of dry distilling wood and collecting the volatiles, such as "wood alcohol" or methanol.
They are now discovering that the by-product of charcoal has increased value as an additional
product called biochar. Other large -volume sources may become commercially available in the
near future.
18
Each of the carbonization methods can be further differentiated as being either a continuous or
batch process. Both types can produce good and not -so -good biochar. The difference between
them is that continuous production systems, which tends to be larger in size, lend themselves to
steady-state operation, if appropriate monitoring is performed and if the product specifications
are what the biochar user desires. A batch system, which favors smaller and less complex
equipment, allows the user to easily customize the pyrolysis process, but can produce wide
fluctuations in some characteristics, especially if monitoring and process controls are not
rigorous.
Currently, of all these sources, there are only three that are realistically accessible to the
individual interested in using biochar. One is purchasing conventional lump charcoal; the second
is small-scale use of simple drum retorts; and the third is making your own char residuals from
Top -Lit UpDraft (TLUD) gasifying stoves.
6.2. Lump Charcoal from Commercial Sources
Conventional lump charcoal was a widespread product prior to WWII, but has been replaced by
charcoal briquettes after the war. Currently, most charcoal briquettes are a mixture of powdered
devolatilized coal, a small portion of raw or carbonized sawdust, and intentional ash additives -
intended to create the "complete charcoal cooking experience." All that lovely white ash,
indicating the coals are ready for cooking, is limestone, straight from the mine.
Nowadays, lump charcoal is a boutique cooking fuel, which is gaining popularity and distributed
almost anywhere outdoor cooking supplies are sold, including most hardware stores. It is
generally made from clean wood scraps, such as residues from furniture making, and appears as
solid lumps that still exhibit the grain of the original wood. While it is not inexpensive, lump
charcoal is certainly affordable in the smaller quantities that a home garden might require to
achieve recommended biochar levels in the soils of 3 to 10 weight percent of the soil mass in the
root zone.
However, an underlying issue remains: Is lump charcoal a good candidate for use as a biochar?
Furthermore, there are many varieties of lump charcoal, as can be investigated by visiting a web
site called www.nakedwhiz.com. The site reviews the cooking properties of lump charcoals, but
was a valuable resource by supplying over a dozen various lump charcoals for testing. This data
set was augmented by a large number of varietal charcoals from Real Montana Charcoal, which
makes small batches of charcoal from individual wood species. Thus, an additional survey was
made of how charcoal varies as a function of the wood species when made within the same basic
production process.
The lump charcoals were tested for total mobile matter, adsorption capacity, and relative density.
The goal was to judge the relative variability of the charcoal properties and see if any one
property could be inferred from another, such as lower density charcoals correlating with higher
adsorption capacity per unit weight, etc. It should be noted that for this set of data, the Mobile
Matter assay temperature was the coal volatile matter setpoint of 900 degrees Celsius, which
removes a small increment of additional volatiles over the previously discussed 450 -Celsius
setpoint now proposed for the biochar modified proximate and ultimate analyses.
19
Mobile matter is an important property in biochar for two reasons. First, there is evidence that
mobile matter leaches into the soil and provides a soluble carbon source, which can cause a
short-term nutrient deficiency for the plants by stimulating soil microbe growth that competes
with the plants for available nitrogen. The mobile matter levels in lump cooking charcoal are a
concern because the charcoal is expected to light without the addition of liquid charcoal starter.
As such, in order to aid lighting, lump charcoal are often made under carbonization conditions
that leave higher levels of low molecular weight volatiles in the charcoal and, thereby, achieve
the desired lighting qualities.
Second, the elevated amounts of mobile matter are likely to disappear within a single growing
season and not contribute to the long-term properties of the soil. As such, mobile matter portion
in biochar is bought and paid for, but represents less long-term value as a soil amendment. Water
and ash provide similarly reduced long-term value in the biochar, but most people recognize that
situation and purchase accordingly.
In addition to the Mobile Matter assay, Adsorption Capacity was tested because that is a crucial
property of biochar that is created at the time of manufacture and unlikely to improve over time.
The results of testing 15 randomly selected commercial lump charcoals are shown in Figure 10.
In general, the best of the lump charcoals had adsorption capacities comparable with the
biocarbons shown on the right of Figure 8, when the adsorption data is compared at the same
adsorption temperature (done by the corresponding author, data not presented here).
Unfortunately, the average lump charcoal mobile matter was over twice the average level of 10%
for biocarbons shown in Figure 8. Furthermore, it is apparent from Figure 10 that one cannot
infer the mobile matter or adsorption capacities based on the relative bulk density, although there
appears to be a weak inverse correlation of adsorption capacity and bulk density.
Eighteen samples of Real Montana Charcoal were obtained and tested for adsorption capacity to
see how the adsorption capacities vary from species to species of wood, holding constant the
specific carbonization process. Figure 11 shows the Real Montana Charcoals adsorption
capacity data, plotted in addition to the adsorption capacity data of Figure 10 for commercial
lump charcoals.
As shown in Figure 11, selecting within a single carbonization method does reduce the
variability of both the relative density and the adsorption capacity. Considering that the average
Real Montana Charcoal adsorption capacity was 70% higher than for the selection of lump
charcoals, and that only one other lump charcoal significantly exceeded the average of the Real
Montana family, it is clear that there is value to be realized by testing lump charcoals for desired
properties. Or in other words, the adsorption capacities have been found to vary as much as
700% (a seven -fold difference) between samples of commercial charcoals, and therefore their
application into soils as biochars should be conducted with forethought and caution, including
measurement of their individual properties prior to soil application.
20
FIGURE 10: COMMERCIAL LUMP CHARCOAL PROPERTIES
35%
1 30%
C.)
L
CD
a 25%
co
C)
t
co
5
C)
O
S
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0.5
•
• -
R2=0.0177
•
•
•
••• ' • •
R2=0.1659
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
Relative Bulk Density of the Lump Charcoal
1.9
7%
6%
V
5%
'v r
4% c�
caQca
V 'Zr
= r
3% Off/
2' 0
Q �
13 RS
1%
0%
2.1
Mobile Matter wt%
Linear (Mobile Matter wt%)
• Adsorption Capacity at 125C
Linear (Adsorption Capacity at 125C)
FIGURE 11: REAL MONTANA CHARCOAL ADSORPTION CAPACITIES
9%
8%
7%
U6%
-
a as
m4°./
ct3%
12-'46
0 w2%
-0 ca
t-1
0%
•
Commercial Lump Charcoals
Real
Montana
Charcoal
family
Lump
—Linear
(Commercial
Charcoals)
R2 = 8E-09
•
Linear
Montana
Charcoal
family)
(Real
Y)
711
•
•
•
♦
•
LI
IL r,
•
• • •
• •
• • •
R2=0.1659
0.5
0.7
0.9 1.1
1.3
1.5 17
Adsorption Sample relative density
1.9 2.1
21
6.3. Charcoals from Small Retorts [anoxic]
Pyrolysis of biomass is caused by heat, and does not require a flame. So "anoxic pyrolysis"
[without oxygen] can occur and is the basis for charcoal/biochar creation via retorts that
essentially bake the raw biomass to drive off volatiles and tarry gases. Many variations of small
charcoal -making retorts appropriate for personal experimentation are discussed on the Internet,
including:
http ://www. hol on. se/folke/carbon/simplechar/simplechar. shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahIX54facp0&feature=related
http://www.biochar-international . org/technol ogy/producti on
http://www.biochar.info/biochar.biochar-production-methods.cfml
In these anoxic procedures, there must be some external heat source that will elevate the
temperature of the raw biomass without flame contact. Several of these retorts cited above
utilize the external burning of the pyrolysis gases, created and emitted from the inner retort
chamber, as fuel to sustain the carbonization process. Each anoxic approach can make a variety
of biochars and the biochar properties can vary from batch to batch and even within individual
batches due to variations in local conditions. For example, temperatures differences between the
walls and the center can yield different amounts of mobile matter remaining in the individual
pieces of char. Similarly, a thick piece of wood in the center will require longer to carbonize
than would smaller pieces closer to the heat sources, possibly leaving some torrified or even raw
wood at the end of the process.
Biochars created via anoxic small -retort processes have not been specifically tested for this
paper, but their characteristics would probably be quite similar to those of commercial lump
charcoal, implying significant variations depending on many operational variables. Although the
small retort chars can be quite different from each other, one advantage is the char producer is
typically also the field -tester. This creates the opportunity for correlating the operational
variables and qualities of each batch of biochar with the desired soil performance.
6.4. Charcoal from Gasifiers (background note)
Gasifiers are devices in which dry biomass is transformed into combustible gases and charcoal in
a zone that is distinctly and controllably separate from where the volatile gases are combusted.
An important note on terminology: To the general public and most biochar enthusiasts, the word
"gasification" denotes both the creation of gases via pyrolysis of the biomass and the subsequent
oxidation of solid hot charcoal/carbon to yield CO2 and CO gases. This latter char -consuming
process is called "char -gasification" in this paper to avoid confusion with the pyrolytic
gasification of the biomass, "wood -gasification", which yields char and wood -gas.
There are several different types of "gasifiers" (referring to the devices, not the processes). In
almost all of them, the raw biomass moves downward, first undergoing anoxic pyrolysis caused
by heat rising from below and converting the biomass to char, and then experiencing char -
gasification and the creation of the heat, leaving behind only ash. In those gasifiers, the making
22
of biochar generally requires the removal of the downward moving fuel at an appropriate time,
place and temperature, depending on the desired charcoal characteristics. Because most gasifiers
were created to consume the charcoal to maximize energy production, prior to the recent interest
in biochar, the removal of any char is easier in some designs than in others, and the carbonization
conditions that any surviving char experiences are not always the same.
6.5. Biochars from oxic Top -Lit UpDraft (TLUD) Pyrolytic Gasifiers
One convenient gasifier source of biochar is the Top -Lit UpDraft (TLUD, pronounced "Tee-
lud") pyrolytic stoves and biochar makers. They can be easily constructed and operated for
small-scale production of biochar.
Originated in 1985 by Dr. Thomas B. Reed, and with almost simultaneous independent
development by Paal Wendelbo, the TLUD devices have always been intended as biomass -
burning cook stoves. Therefore, by intention, Top -Lit UpDraft gasification has been
demonstrated primarily at a small scale. The TLUD devices feature flaming pyrolysis, a unique
combustion process that produces char at the same time as the pyrolytic wood gas is released
from the biomass. Cooking is accomplished by secondary combustion of the pyrolytic gases. The
value of the TLUD char has been largely ignored (except by Dr. Ronal Larson, whose prominent
advocacy of char-from-TLUDs enabled subsequent development efforts) until the recent surge of
interest in biochar. Recent efforts are focused on making larger TLUDs with the emphasis on
biochar production, leaving the utilization of the heat as a secondary feature and the subject of
ongoing development efforts.
In the TLUD gasifiers, the fuel does not move (except by shrinkage when pyrolyzed). Instead, a
"pyrolysis front" moves downward through the mass of fuel, converting the biomass to char.
The name "Top -Lit UpDraft" denotes two key characteristics: The fire is ignited at the top of the
column of biomass and the primary combustion air is coming upward through the fuel from the
bottom of the biomass. The primary combustion air sustains the pyrolysis reactions occurring
within the pyrolysis front. This mode of combustion is called "flaming pyrolysis", where
biomass is converted to char and releases combustible volatiles, in contrast with "glowing
pyrolysis" that is characteristic of the combustion of char.
The tiny "flames" within the descending pyrolysis front are due to the combustion of a portion of
the created pyrolysis gases, thereby generating the heat needed for propagating the pyrolysis
front downward. Since the rate of heat generation is determined by the amount of available
oxygen, the progression of the pyrolysis front is controllable by regulating the primary airflow.
In a typical TLUD, the pyrolysis front moves downward 5 to 20 mm per minute, depending on
the nature of the fuel and the amount of available primary air.
Above the pyrolysis front, the created char accumulates and the oxygen -depleted air (mainly
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and water vapor) sweeps the created pyrolytic gases
to the secondary combustion zone. There, additional air is provided and the pyrolytic gases are
burnt in a separate and very clean flame. These pyrolytic gases are tarry and long -chain
hydrocarbons that, if not burned, would form a thick smoke.
23
Unique among the gasifiers, TLUDs operate in an oxic batch mode and do virtually all of the
biomass pyrolysis or wood -gasification before doing appreciable char -gasification. The
transition between the two phases is quite distinct, changing from a characteristic yellow -orange
flame (from burning tarry gases) to a smaller bluish flame that denotes the burning of carbon
monoxide.
There are numerous variations of the TLUD technology. Each variation has its own unique
history and intended application. Most of them are do not facilitate the creation and salvaging of
the char, because they promote the burning of the char by providing char -gasification within the
TLUD device.
Almost unique among the TLUD gasifiers, the version named "Champion" (because it won a
clean combustion award at Stove Camp 2005) is designed for easy removal of the fuel canister
after the pyrolysis is completed, facilitating the collection of the char into a simple container to
extinguish the hot char. Such a "snuffer box" could be as simple as a clay pot with a plate to
cover it or any other airtight vessel that will smother the residual combustion.
Figure 12 shows a vertical cross-section of the "Champion" TLUD stove. Information about and
construction details for the Champion TLUD gasifier and the Wendelbo Peko Pe TLUD gasifier
are on the Internet at:
vwwv.bioenergylists.org/andersontludconstruction and
www.bioenergylists.org/wendelbopekope.
Additional references are:
www.bioenergylists.org/andersontludcopm (Summary of emissions testing of TLUDs)
www.bioenergylists.org/stovesdoc/Anderson/GasifierLAMNET.pdf (the "big picture")
www.hedon.info/docs/BP53-Anderson-14.pdf (A paper entitled "Micro -gasification: What it
is and why it works")
www.woodgas.com (Website of Dr. Tom Reed and the Biomass Energy Foundation - BEF)
www.bioenergylists.org (An extremely good website dealing will all types of cookstoves.)
Also, conducting Internet searches on the names and topics associate with TLUDs will reveal
substantial additional information.
24
FIGURE 12: Vertical section of the "Champion" TLUD Gasifier (2008)
Pot
Concentrator Lid
8 -in.
Outer Cylinder
7.5 -in. x 12 -in
Fuel Cylinder
6 -in. x
Tin Can
6 -in. x 7 -in.
Grate --
J
Flame
Secondary
air enters
:= Riser
Gases rise &
charcoal forms
from upper fuel
while
pyrolysis front
progresses
downward
through the
raw fuel.
t,
Handle of
Concentrator
Lid
E 1
Handle of Gasifier
Optional use of
forced -air gives
several cooking
advantages
Secondary Air
Primary Air
6.6. Analyses of TLUD Biochars
6.6.1. Background and Procedures
Research about biochars is barely beginning and structured studies of carbonization conditions
and resulting char properties are rare. This Section 6.5 examines data from one biochar maker (a
Champion TLUD cookstove) using one fuel (wood pellets) and operated only one time in each of
two settings for the primary air supply. The findings, summarized from unpublished records, are
still singular observations and offer potential generalizations similar to those of earlier Sections.
Any apparently meaningful observations should be replicated before acceptance and usage in
further studies. The purpose of this section is to utilize some of the proposed biochar analyses,
report some very preliminary results, and suggest some hypotheses for the underlying causes of
the observed trends about characteristics of biochar. Individuals using TLUD technology can
easily replicate these studies.
25
A standard -size Champion TLUD (15 cm or 6 inch diameter of the fuel chamber) was modified
to take temperature readings at five locations, as shown in Figure 13. Four K -type thermocouples
were inserted into the center of the 22 -cm tall fuel pile at heights of 1, 7, 13, and 19 cm above the
grate. The fifth one recorded temperatures of the secondary combustion flame at the top of an 18
cm riser; no cooking pot was in place. The fuel both times was 2500 grams of standard
woodstove pellets.
FIGURE 13: Configuration
of the Champion TLUD for
Temperature
Measurements
The first data set was with both primary and secondary air supplied by "Natural Draft", where
the chimney effect of the rising hot combustion gases results in the air flows. The first TLUD run
lasted 2 hrs 50 minutes functioned in pyrolysis mode, consistently produced 3 kW (,,11 MJ/hr)
of thermal energy, and produced 566 g of biochar, (22.6 wt % yield). The second data set,
demarcated as "Forced Draft", featured the primary combustion air supply boosted by a small
blower. This TLUD run pyrolyzed for 1 hr 25 minutes, doubled the energy output, and yielded
350 g of biochar (14 wt % yield). In both cases, the biochar was carefully removed in six
approximately equal layers, extinguished without adding water, allowed to cool, and bagged for
analyses. "Layer One" was from the top of the cooled char, and "Layer Six" was closest to the
grate.
26
Summary of observations during the tests: No visible smoke was observed during either of the
test runs. Temperature readings at one -minute intervals revealed the approach of the pyrolysis
front to each thermocouple, but the temperatures did not decrease after its passage. Typical
temperatures at and above the pyrolysis front were recorded as 600C to 700C in the first data set,
and 800C to 1000C in the second, but initial efforts at thermocouple calibration on a 400 degree
Celsius hotplate showed them to be reading 100Cto 200 degrees high, and the error probably
increased at higher temperatures. In previous independent experiments with accurate
thermocouples, temperatures in the flaming pyrolysis zone of similar TLUD devices have been
measured from 490°C to 700°C, increasing with increasing gas flow and faster pyrolysis.
Therefore, the reported temperature trends should be considered qualitative and requiring
replication with better equipment.
6.6.2. Modified Proximate Analyses of the Experimental TLUD Chars
The modified proximate analyses of the six layers of each of the two data collections are
presented in Figure 14.
FIGURE 14: MODIFIED PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF TLUD CHARS
120
100
80
60
20
0
CO
��� ��� ��� ire �tb ire
, ik1/4.1 /1": eke S`: ck`•'
\K \d \d I
d \d \a
���� ,��� de ,�,�Se ���a ��'06 �C'060 X006 1000 �006 �C'06
+16 +16 +16 C,2r \-\(e 4 kfl l�0 kO 4 kfl kfl
D Water (gm/100 gms dry biochar)
DAsh
■ Mobile Matter
■ Resident Matter
J
AL.
i / e, el e, 4.
QC
tom ' t/IV tom ' t� ' t ikS'
O O O O O O
27
Based on the trends shown in Figure 14, the following observations are noted:
a. Moisture was measurable in eight of the 12 samples, even though every sample was air-
cooled and bagged within six hours of the completion of the data collection. The moisture levels
were small, less than two weight percent, and were attributed to water vapor adsorbed from the
ambient air during cooling.
b. The ash content of the chars created with higher heat forced draft run was approximately
double that of those created with the lower heat natural draft study. This is compatible with the
reduced yield of char by weight from the same amount of starting wood pellets. Unless ash is
physically carried away within the flow of the gases, which was not the case in TLUDs, it will
accumulate to the extent any gasification reduces the amount of remaining char.
c. It is interesting that both cases, Layer 6 (the lowest level, with visibly more loose ash in the
collection tray) did not measure higher percentages of ash than the other five layers. One
explanation is that only the pyrolyzed pellets were tested and any loose ash was not included in
the testing. This practice was adopted because loose ash tends to migrate down within the bed of
char and the each layer may contain ash descending from all the layers above it.
d. The mobile matter is roughly three -fold higher in the lower temperature natural draft chars
than in the higher temperature forced draft data set. Considering the 38% reduction in total
weight of char produced, the total mass of mobile matter are roughly five times greater in the
first set than in the second set.
e. The impression is that the percentage of mobile matter is slightly lower in the middle levels
than at Layers 1 and 6 in both data sets. This phenomenon, and the other observations above,
deserves further replication studies before less conjecture -inspired explanations should be
attempted.
6.6.3. Modified Ultimate Analyses of TL UD Chars
Except for the indication of the moisture content, all of the above observations can also be seen
in the Modified Ultimate Analyses in Figure 15. (Future biochar studies could present reasons to
omit the Proximate Analysis altogether because modern chemical analyses greatly facilitate the
testing.)
Based on the trends shown in Figure 15, several observations are most evident:
a. Almost all of the ash is acid soluble; the non -soluble ash was barely detected. Furthermore,
because of the purity of the wood pellets used as the biomass source, mobile and resident
nitrogen were present at the analytical detection limit. All three trace compounds, non -soluble
ash, mobile nitrogen and resident nitrogen, have been eliminated from Figure 15. The original
data may be accessed by exploring the embedded spreadsheet on MS Word versions of this
document.
28
b. The amount of mobile carbon is highly variable, being significant in only six of the twelve
samples. This inconsistency merits further examination.
FIGURE 15: MODIFIED ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF TLUD CHARS
100%
90%
80%
a,
70%
ca
60%
a) 50%
v
L
C,
Q.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
tic <O
te.A e re e ec
t���, tom ' ����t sce ��,
V ° �O <V\S•C \)k Nit t Q
÷s# 01/4- 4)1/4' '1/4%.+ +
e1, rb IX Co
es 01 re (�Aek �
tet, t� ' pit' acs'
�� ' t�
ebe ,
v� v �� a'
• Resident Carbon 0 Resident H & 0 U Mobile Carbon 0 Mobile H & 0 ❑Ash (acid soluble)
c. For the higher temperature forced draft pyrolysis, the percentages of Resident H & 0 are
nearly double those of the lower temperature data sets. However, given the total weight
production was 62%, it appears that the actual amounts (grams) of Resident H & 0 are not
greatly changed by the higher temperatures
d. The greatest impacts of the higher temperatures on the percentages shown are on the amounts
of Resident Carbon. Not only are the percentages 0% to 17% lower (between corresponding
levels), but there is also the 62% weight factor to consider. In general, the absolute amount of
Resident Carbon is perhaps only 50% of the Resident Carbon in the lower temperature biochar.
29
e. There is a noteworthy difference between the resident carbon content of TLUD chars and the
other tested chars. The other chars (shown in Figure 6) have resident carbon amounts from 55 to
75 percent. The TLUD chars from the top five layers of the lower temperature natural -draft
dataset have an average resident carbon reading of 77%. The percentages are more variable
(from 63 to 81%) for the higher temperature forced -draft dataset.
6.6.4. 1 he CEC and Adsorption Capacity of TLUD Chars
The higher temperatures associated with the forced draft appear to have dramatic impacts on the
CEC and adsorption capacity of the two sets of TLUD biochars, as shown in Figure 16.
FIGURE 16: CEC AND ADSORPTION CAPACITY OF TLUD CHARS
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
�❑
10% of CEC in meq/100g
■Adsorption Capacity (wt% @ 100C)
—
k Sri'
N
KC
0 At
S v1) . vgo. ���e��
'V
en)
Based on the trends shown in Figure 16, several observations are most evident:
esti
�V
a. The surprisingly high adsorption capacity in Layer 6 of the lower -temperature natural draft
biochars caused a review of the methodology, and a probable explanation of the data. When the
pyrolysis phase finished on that batch of fuel, the operator attempted to extinguish the processes
by cutting off all of the air (with oxygen) that could enter the TLUD. However, 50 minutes later
the biochar was still very hot, and then the 6 levels of samples were removed. One plausible
interpretation is that some small amount of air managed to enter and sustain some char -
gasification during the 50 minutes, resulting in the lowest level of the char being subjected to the
30
higher temperatures and perhaps other un-identified processes. This might have also influenced
Layer 5 chars, but the impact is less dramatic. Referring to Figure 15, the higher amount of
mobile carbon might also be attributed to this delay in removal of the biochar from the TLUD
device. The delay did not occur with the second batch of data sets, since the operator learned
how to (very carefully) scoop out the hot char.
b. The CEC readings of Layers 1 and 2 in the natural draft TLUD data are similar to the range of
CEC readings reported in Figure 8 for the other tested biochars. The remaining TLUD chars had
markedly lower CEC levels. Restated, ten of the twelve CEC readings on Figure 16 are lower
than any of the readings on Figure 8. It is known that CEC levels can naturally increase in soils,
so the long term consequences of these low values is not known and may not be of significance.
c. The adsorption capacities for the TLUD biochars in Figure 16 overlay the data reported in
Figures 8 and 10, generally in the range of 1% to 7%. However, the TLUD data reveal that the
adsorption capacities of the second set of six levels are substantially higher (average = 5.8 wt %)
than for the first set (average = 2.0 wt %, with Layer 6 excluded because of the post combustion
air leak discussed in 6.5.4. a). The single difference in the TLUD runs was the forced air for the
second set, resulting in higher pyrolysis temperatures. This near tripling of the adsorption
capacity must be offset by the 62% weight yield. Combining these trends, per kilo of original
raw biomass converted into biochar available to go to the soil, the second TLUD operation
generated approximately double the total adsorption capacity.
A further observation based on 6.6.4. b & c: Adsorption capacity and CEC comparisons within
biochar production methods are not accurate without consideration of the char yields.
Furthermore, when comparing the yields of charcoal produced by oxic processes (such as with
TLUDs) and anoxic processes (such as by retorts), the external fuel utilized to sustain the anoxic
pyrolysis needs to be taken into consideration and accounted for in the overall yield calculation.
6.6.5. Summary and Conclusions Concerning the Two TLUD Char Datasets
TLUD devices can be made and used at home and small commercial settings. They are easy and
inexpensive to construct and operate in several sizes from very small (1 -gallon) up to moderate
(55 -gallon) devices. Small quantities of biochar can be made quickly for research.
TLUDs can use a wide variety of feedstocks. The fuel pieces are generally smaller (being pellets,
chips, briquettes, pucks, etc.). Well -dried feedstocks are recommended and TLUDs have less
stable secondary combustion with wet fuels due to elevated moisture levels in the volatilized
wood gases.
TLUD (Top -Lit UpDraft) pyrolytic gasifiers produce biochar with reasonable characteristics that
merit further consideration. They utilize "oxic" (flame -present) pyrolysis. The conditions for
operating the TLUD devices can influence biochar properties — especially adsorption capacity.
In the context of world cultures, the small sizes of TLUD cook stoves provide advantages for the
poorest people to obtain household energy for cooking and space heating while also producing
31
biochar. By sheer numbers of possible users, large volumes of biochar are possible in
developing countries, which would represent substantial soil benefits and carbon dioxide offsets.
7. OPTIONS FOR INFORMALLY TESTING CHARS
As has been seen, there is a significant amount of variability within virtually every measured
property in chars that aspire to be good biochars. As such, it takes more than just the claim of the
seller to make a quality biochar, which leads us to recommend, "Buyer beware".
This final section presents some fairly accessible tests that allow one to screen out highly
undesirable biochar properties and, perhaps, assist in selecting the better biochar candidates.
Moisture and ash are two ingredients found in every bag of biochar, yet they add little value to
the long-term biochar performance. Both are fairly straightforward to measure and any candidate
char should be tested for both.
7.1. Moisture
Measuring moisture content is particularly straightforward and can be done even in a lowly
toaster oven. A small sample of the char is placed into a closed but not sealed container,
preferably metal, and heated to just above 100 Celsius in dry air for an extended period of time.
The time is "until no additional weight loss is observed." (Heating overnight works great if your
oven is appropriate for that many hours of use). A suitable container can be made out of a 4 oz
tomato paste can, with the top removed using one of the newer -style can openers that slices the
edge of the top lid so that it sets back in place on the rim and does not fall inside the can. The lid
is to shield the char from the direct infrared heating of the toaster oven elements. An alternative
is to cover the container with heavy-duty aluminum foil and poke a few slits in the cover. A
standard oven thermometer, suitable for use inside the toaster oven, provides sufficiently
accurate and reproducible temperature indications, since the thermostats of inexpensive toaster
ovens are not actually precise.
An inexpensive scale, accurate to 0.01 grams, is needed to weigh the samples before and after
heating. Acceptable units are available on "ebay" for less than $20 that read to 0.01 grams up to
200 grams — the principal target market application is likely the illegal drug trade at the retail
level. Alternatively, a kitchen scale with nearest gram accuracy can be used if the sample of char
is appropriately larger (also requiring longer drying times). The analytical techniques require a
bit of practice to achieve consistency and reproducibility, but half a dozen attempts will turn you
into a seasoned analytical practitioner for measuring moisture content.
In general, as produced, chars have less than 5% and never more than 10% residual moisture. If
higher, you are being sold "char with water added". However, many biochars are highly
hydroscopic, an important property in the soil, and will adsorb significant amounts of moisture if
exposed to humid air.
If you are using homemade chars, this is really not an issue because you probably know when the
char was made and if it has been wetted or exposed to humid air. Since the water is not harming
32
anything in the ultimate performance of the biochar, the issue is that water should not be a
significant component of a commercial product sold on a weight basis or requiring transportation
over a long distance.
7.2. Ash
Ash is also relatively straightforward to measure — this requires the same scale accuracy of 0.01
grams, a propane camping stove and a clean open top tuna fish or cat food "tin can" (avoid
aluminum). The tin can needs to be heated once while empty to burn off any coatings on the
container. Weigh the container after it cools. A half -centimeter layer of dried char is spread on
the bottom of this clean dry tin can and the weight of the added char is noted. The open tin can is
heated on the camping stove over an open flame that uniformly heats the entire bottom of the
container. The contents are periodically stirred to facilitate ashing, taking care to not knock or
blow away any of the ash. The process is continued until the tin can contains only gray to white
ash residue. At no time should the contents of the tin can catch fire and burn with an open flame,
since that carries ash away as particulates in the smoke. The ashed sample and tin can are
weighed, then the ash removed and the weight of the tin can subtracted. The weight of ash on a
dry char basis is calculated.
Most chars made from clean wood sources have less than 5 weight percent ash, while
agricultural residues, such as corn stover, may have significantly higher levels. It is tempting to
worry about the ash constituents in chars. This concern is legitimate if one does not know the
origin of the biomass utilized to produce the char. In most cases, the starting material is new
clean wood or agricultural residues, and concerns about ash constituent are generally not
justified. However, whenever the origin of the biomass is unknown, or the ash levels are
significantly higher than 10 weight percent, it may be worth testing the ash for soil pH impact
and the presence of metals. The former can be estimated using pH paper and will indicate how
much the ash will act like lime in the soil. For acidic soils, additional alkalinity is welcome, but
for high pH soils, additional liming may lead to poor crop performance. Testing for metals
should be conducted by a qualified laboratory that can also help interpret the analytical results.
7.3. Adsorption Capacity
Surprisingly, adsorption capacity is one test that is accessible to the home practitioner. It does
take some practice and it helps if you obtain a sample of activated carbon to use as a standard
reference. Small quantities of activated carbon are available at pet supply stores, since it is used
in home aquarium filters.
The approach is to prepare a very dry sample of the candidate char, and then "challenge" it to
adsorb a known vapor source. The drying of the char is critical, because adsorbed water will
artificially lower the observed adsorption capacity. The drying method described previously is
used, but the recommended temperature is around 200 degrees Celsius. The reason for the higher
drying temperature is shown in Figure 17, which shows the weight losses of seven different char
samples as they are heated from room temperature to 300 Celsius in a nitrogen atmosphere. As
can be seen, there is a plateau in the weight loss between 175 C and 225 Celsius, which
corresponds with the desorption of the adsorbed water vapor and any light volatile compounds
33
such as methanol, acetic acid, acetaldehyde, etc., which also diminish the adsorption capacity of
the char, resulting in an incorrectly lower measurement of the Adsorption Capacity.
FIGURE 17: WEIGHT LOSS CURVES FOR A SET OF SEVEN CHARS
120%
UO 118%
CD
116%
114%
112%
O
C 110%
L
O.108%
CO
al 106%
Ame
,O)104%
v
102%
100%
r
Juniper Char - Process I
Aspen char 5-08
SPF char 5-08
Juniper Char - Process II
Gasifier Carbon -rich ash
Cedar 2-09
Beech 11-05-08
drying wt losses due to
wt loss 1— residual carbonization
0
50
100 150 200
Temperature Celsius
250 300 350
Prior to drying, the candidate char should be crushed and sieved to yield a coarse granular
material, with granules between 1 and 5 mm in diameter. After the char is dried to approximately
200 degrees Celsius, it is cooled in a container with a sealed lid to avoid uptake of atmospheric
moisture. Once cooled, a weighed clean dry tomato paste can is filled about one half way with
dry granular char and weighed again.
The "challenge gas, R134a, is obtained from any auto supply store in a 12 ounce cans. An R134a
dispensing device, with a metering valve and supply tubing, is also required. Modify the
dispensing device by cutting the flexible hose and screwing an inflation needle used to pump up
soccer and basketballs into the cut end of the hose. Inject the R134a slowly into the bottom of the
tomato paste can through a small hole drilled in the unopened end of the can. As the R134a is
admitted into the char, some R134a will be adsorbed and the heat of adsorption will be released —
the container may get warm to the touch. The addition of R134a should continue until the char
will adsorb no additional challenge gas. In general, the R134a addition can continue until the
temperature of char returns to the starting temperature, since the excess R134a will enter as a
cold vapor and eventually cool the char mass. A simple insertion meat thermometer can improve
the accuracy of determining the endpoint of the R134a addition. The container should be shaken
periodically to assist the equilibration process by mixing the char contents. When completed, the
weight of the container, char and adsorbed R134a allow the calculation of the percentage of
weight increase caused by the R134a.
34
In general, chars with good adsorption capacities show a noticeable temperature rise and
significant weight gain, such as ten or more percent of the weight of the original char when the
sample temperature is near ambient. In contrast, chars with low adsorption capacities (zero to
four percent) will show little temperature rise during R134a addition and essentially no weight
gain due to the adsorption of R134a. Furthermore, the adsorption test conducted on activated
carbon should yield very high percentage increases in weight and a noticeable temperature rise
during R134a addition. The differences become obvious with relatively little practice.
Note: The results obtained by this ambient -temperature method are not directly comparable with
the reported GACS results obtained at 100 and 125 degrees Celsius, as discussed in conjunction
with Figures 8, 10 and 11. Adsorption results at typical ambient temperatures are on the order of
twice the levels observed at the 100-125 degree Celsius.
7.4. The "feel" of good char
Properly carbonized wood forms a rigid, easily crushed material that lacks pockets of under -
carbonized material. This material differs from the partially burned logs that linger after the
campfire goes out. In addition, fully carbonized chars are also not particularly "greasy" to the
touch. They are dirty and make copious amounts of black dust, but that dust will wash off one's
hands with just water. If it takes significant amounts of soap to remove the char powder from the
pores of the skin, then the char has significant amounts of mobile matter, with the associated
concerns discussed previously.
7.5. Other tests
Beyond these simple tests, it becomes difficult to accurately measure char properties outside a
proper analytical lab. Attempting proximate and ultimate analyses without the proper analytical
equipment is unlikely to yield any insightful results. It is expected that facilities that are currently
testing soils for typical agricultural properties, such as fertilizer content, alkalinity, etc., will offer
appropriate biochar characterization tests in the future as biochar becomes a more accepted soil
component.
8. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE EFFORTS
A discussion of this length does not lend itself to a comprehensive summary and one will not be
attempted here. If but one conclusion is allowed, it would be that chars can be characterized
sufficiently to discriminate between individual samples with a resolution adequate to predict
subsequent effects when utilized as biochar, the soil amendment. Unfortunately, the research to
relate char properties, measured by any means, to soil performance is at its infancy. However,
when those cause and effect relationships are discerned, the composite path from measurable
char properties to predictable soil performance will be in place.
In anticipation of the day when char properties can be projected onto soil performance, the
following issues remain unresolved and deserve further investigation:
35
a. Characterization of the "mobile matter" and "resident matter" and how it relates to
the carbonization process that generates the biochar. Pyrolysis processes produce a wide
variety of carbonization conditions, both between commercial processes and even within
individual operations. That variability manifests itself in the transformation of the organic
portion of the biomass into biochar and, to a lesser extent, the modification of ash properties.
Understanding how pyrolysis conditions influence the char properties (and how the formed chars
impact soil performance) will create the hierarchy of carbonization processes for the production
of biochar and guide the operation of individual processes to optimize biochar efficacy. For
example, it is anticipated that anoxic retort processes will yield significantly different non-
graphene organics than would be found in similar chars created under oxic conditions, with both
the mobile matter and resident matter having different properties, impacts and fates in the soil.
b. Identifying and standardizing unique analytical methods for biochars and establishing
the appropriate interpretation of the results. Biochar is a unique class of materials and its
roles in carbon sequestration and influence on soil dynamics fall outside the capabilities of
analytical methods developed for other materials, namely coal. This discussion has been very
heavy-handed in the modification of traditional ASTM tests along with the wholesale advocacy
of alternate analytical methods. We have proposed potentially insightful interpretations of the
results, and have stated our rationale for those changes. Specifically, all components of the
modified proximate and ultimate analyses methods, along with the standardization of the CEC
assay and measurement of adsorption capacities, need to be subjected to a timely review,
optimization, and adoption by the biochar research community.
c. The science of biochar as a small but enabling aspect of the impact of biochar on
society. The improved soil productivity and carbon sequestration benefits of biochar achieve
nothing unless implemented outside the ivory halls, and have little impact if restricted to the
traditional pathways of technology development and distribution. TLUD technology represents
one example of "distributed biochar production". Such "low tech — low capital" approaches, with
implementation on a massive scale within existing non -affluent cultures, would yield immediate
results and likely have more cumulative impact than the "patent -pending" improvements of
centralized production. Clearly, the distributed programs need to be correctly orchestrated along
with sustainable biomass procurement practices. But the programs actually do need to occur if
biochar is to somehow make a difference to the plants, the farmers, the atmosphere, and the
societies of this world. As such, the time for bickering, power plays, and haggling about the
exact amount of carbon sequestration credits for a specific biochar addition should be pushed
behind us. As Voltaire noted, "The perfect is the enemy of the good", but only if we let it.
In closing, biochar is at "the end of the beginning" and has the potential to play a dynamic role in
the future of humanity and its societies. Hopefully, this discussion provides a small nudge in the
right direction.
36
View publication slats
b
.a
4
EXHIBIT
14
From: James Gaspard
Date: Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Referral comments for Brighton hearings
To: Robert Demaree <bob.demaree@kw.com>
Cc: Dylan Van Demar Michael Hall <pagoda.mapping@gmail.com>, Michael
Dente <michael.dente@kw.com>, Bob Choate <BChoate@cp2law.com>
The 2013 study is from Eastern Europe and the technologies historically used in that part of the world do not have
emission requirements that exist in Colorado. All I know is there are no hydrocarbons in our exhaust and our biochar has
been tested and has no PAHs in the biochar. See attached test report from the State of Oregon.
Jordan was the person quoted and that was a statement she made to CSU in an alumni post by CSU.
Biochar is used for water filtration. It is ironic that they think we pollute the water. There is no liquid by-product from our
production. Other biochar production technologies produce liquid discharges.
James Gaspard
CEO
Biochar Now
Colorado Site Address: 19500 County Road 7, Berthoud, CO 80513
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1832, Loveland, CO 8O539-1832
www.biocharnow.com
PAH and PCB test results.PDF
205K
e-Hardcopy 2.0
Automated Report
Northern California
ccmsrn
LABORATORIES
Technical Report for
Walking Point Farms - Sherwood OR
Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
WALKING POINT FARMS - SOIL TESTING
Accutest Job Number: C32292
Sampling Date: 02/03/14
Report to:
Walking Point Farms
15485 SW Scholls Drive
Sherwood, OR 97140
chris@walkingpointtech. com
ATTN: Chris Tenney
Total number of pages in report: 17
Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements
of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
and/or state specific certification programs as applicable.
Client Service contact: Tony Vega 408-588-0200
James J. Rhudy
Lab Director
Certifications: OR (CA300006) CA (08258CA) AZ (AZ0762) DoD ELAP (L -A -B L2242)
This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of Accutest Laboratories.
Test results relate only to samples analyzed.
Northern California • 2105 Lundy Ave. • San Jose, CA 95131 • tel: 408-588-0200 • fax: 408-588-0201 • http://www.accutest.com
Accutest Laboratories is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications to this
document. Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited.
t 1 of 17
▪ ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Sections:
Table of Contents
-1-
Section1: Sample Summary3
Section 2: Summary of Hits 4
Section 3: Sample Results 5
3.1: C32292-1: #1 GRAB 6
Section 4: Misc. Forms 9
4.1: Chain of Custody 10
Section 5: GC/MS Semi-volatiles - QC Data Summaries 12
5.1: Method Blank Summary 13
5.2: Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicate Summary 14
Section 6: GC Semi-volatiles - QC Data Summaries 15
6.1: Method Blank Summary 16
6.2: Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicate Summary 17
40,
a
C)
S ■ 2 of 17
▪ ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Accutest Laboratories
Sample Summary
Walking Point Farms - Sherwood OR
Job No: C32292
Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
Project No: WALKING POINT FARMS - SOIL TESTING
Sample Collected
Number Date Time By
Matrix
Received Code Type
Client
Sample ID
C32292-1 02/03/14 10:00 HB
02/06/14 SO Soil
#1 GRAB
Soil samples reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise indicated on result page.
MI f 3 of 17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Summary of Hits
Job Number:
Account:
Project:
Collected:
C32292
Walking Point Farms - Sherwood OR
Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
02/03/14
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Result/
Analyte Qual
RL
MDL Units Method
Page 1 of 1
•
C32292-1
#1 GRAB
No hits reported in this sample.
, 4of17
ACCL TEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Section 3
Northern California
ccmsrn
LABORATORIES
Sample Results
Report of Analysis
w
IIM 5of17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis
Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID:
Lab Sample ID:
Matrix:
Method:
Project:
#1 GRAB
C32292-1
SO - Soil
SW846 8270C SW846 3550B
Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
Date Sampled: 02/03/14
Date Received: 02/06/14
Percent Solids: 92.6
•
Run #1 a
Run #2
File ID
Y24866. D
DF
1
Analyzed By
02/07/14 MT
Prep Date
02/07/ 14
Prep Batch Analytical Batch
OP9529 EY1135
Run #1
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
1.17g 1.0ml
BN PAH List
CAS No. Compound
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
90-12-0
91-57-6
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
CAS No.
4165-60-0
321-60-8
1718-51-0
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g, h, i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a, h)anthr acene
Fluoranthene
anthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1, 2, 3-cd)pyrene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Surrogate Recoveries
Nitrobenzene -d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
Terphenyl-d14
Result RL MDL Units
ND 4600 2000 ug/kg
ND 4600 2200 ug/kg
ND 4600 1500 ug/kg
ND 4600 920 ug/kg
ND 4600 920 ug/kg
ND 4600 920 ug/kg
ND 4600 1200 ug/kg
ND 4600 920 ug/kg
ND 4600 920 ug/kg
ND 4600 1100 ug/kg
ND 4600 920 ug/kg
ND 4600 2000 ug/kg
ND 4600 1200 ug/kg
ND 4600 2100 ug/kg
ND 4600 2200 ug/kg
ND 4600 2100 ug/kg
ND 4600 1600 ug/kg
ND 4600 920 ug/kg
Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
61% 15-101%
61% 15-104%
69% 56-123%
(a) Reporting Limit increased due to sample matrix (charcoal powder).
Q
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit
RL = Reporting Limit
E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range
J = Indicates an estimated value
B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank
N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound
11i 6 of 17
MI ACCDTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis
Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID:
Lab Sample ID:
Matrix:
Method:
Project:
#1 GRAB
C32292-1
SO - Soil
SW846 8082 SW846 3550B
Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
Date Sampled: 02/03/14
Date Received: 02/06/14
Percent Solids: 92.6
•
Run #1 a
Run #2
File ID
PP033558.D
DF
1
Analyzed By
02/07/14 RV
Prep Date
02/07/ 14
Prep Batch Analytical Batch
OP9530 GPP1097
Run #1
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
1.16g 10.0ml
PCB List
CAS No.
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
CAS No.
877-09-8
877-09-8
2051-24-3
2051-24-3
Compound
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Surrogate Recoveries
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
lene
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
lene
Decachlorobiphenyl
Decachlorobiphenyl
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Run# 1
70%
65%
98%
86%
RL
930 190
930 470
930 470
930 470
930 470
930 470
930 190
Run# 2
MDL Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
Limits
38-109%
38-109%
49-138%
49-138%
(a) Reporting Limit increased due to sample matrix (charcoal powder sample).
Q
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit
RL = Reporting Limit
E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range
J = Indicates an estimated value
B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank
N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound
11i 7 of 17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis
Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: #1 GRAB
Lab Sample ID: C32292-1
Matrix: SO - Soil
Project: Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
Date Sampled: 02/03/14
Date Received: 02/06/14
Percent Solids: 92.6
•
General Chemistry
Analyte
Moisture, Percent
Result RL Units DF Analyzed By Method
7.4 % 1 02/08/14 18:45 PH SM18 2540G
RL = Reporting Limit
� i 8 o 17
▪ ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Section 4
■
Northern California
ccmsrn
LABORATORIES
Misc. Forms
Custody Documents and Other Forms
Includes the following where applicable:
• Chain of Custody
a
MI , 9of17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
a
LABORATORIES
Samplers's Name
Accutest
Sam'te ID Sample ID / Field Point / Point of Collection
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
2105 Lundy Ave, San Jose, CA 95131
(408) 588-0200 FAX: (408) 588-0201
Client Purchase Order
f _
MIN
10 Day
5 Day
3 Day
Way
1 Day
Same Day
Emergency T/A data available VIA Labllnk
Approved By'Date:
Relinquished by Sung
1 liglettet-tk
Relinquished by:
5
Relinquished by:
Commercial "A" - Results only
Commercial "8" - Results with QC summaries
Commerical "t3+" - Results, QC, and chromatograms
FULTI - Level 4 data package
EDF torGeotracker [] EDO Format
Provide EDF Global ID
Provide EDF Logcode:
FED -EX Track,9 j 71 °C1804)--
ttfe Order Control
Accutest Quote
Sample Custody must be documented below each time samples change possession, Including courierdelivery,
Date T Wit)Received By: Relinquished By:
f001/14 1C4r/ ) it 2�" '/`if l6m%'!ec
Time:
Date
D e me
Received By:
5
Relinquished By:
4
Accutest NC Job U: C
Comments! Remarks
Date Tune: whii1/4, /
Date Time:
Received Sy:
Custody SealS
ZZg
GW- Ground l'Vater
SW- Surface %Wier
OW Or114.inc,Water
(Percht rate Only)
LAB USE ONLY
2
Received By:
Received Sy;
4
D
C32292: Chain of Custody
Pagel of 2
• 10 of 17
'CCU -TES -17
C32292
LABORATORIES
Miakccu-ras 17p
Accutest Laboratories Sample Receipt Summary
LABORATORIES
Accutest Job Number: C32292
Date / Time Received: 2/6/2014
Client: WALKING POINT FARMS
Cooler Temps (Initial/Adjusted): #1: (15.3/15);
Cooler Security
1. Custody Seals Present:
2. Custody Seals Intact:
Cooler Temperature
1. Temp criteria achieved:
2. Cooler temp verification:
3. Cooler media:
4. No. Coolers:
Y or N
Delivery Method:
3. COC Present:
❑ 4. Smpl Dates/Time OK
Y or N
IR2 Glass;
No Ice
1
Quality Control _Preservation Y or N N/A
1. Trip Blank present / cooler:
2. Trip Blank listed on COC:
3. Samples preserved properly:
4. VOCs headspace free:
Project: Walking Point Farms
FedEx Airbill #' s: 797818710680
Y or N
Sample Integrity - Documentation
1. Sample labels present on bottles:
2. Container labeling complete:
3. Sample container label / COC agree:
Sample Integrity - Condition
1. Sample recvd within HT:
2. All containers accounted for:
3. Condition of sample:
Sample Integrity - Instructions
1. Analysis requested is clear:
2. Bottles received for unspecified tests
3. Sufficient volume recvd for analysis:
4. Compositing instructions clear:
5. Filtering instructions clear:
Y or N
a
Y or N
Intact
Y or N N/A
O
Comments
Accutest Laboratories
V:408.588.0200
2105 Lundy Avenue
F: 408.588.0201
San Jose, CA 95131
www/accutest.com
C32292: Chain of Custody
Page 2 of 2
MIT 11 of 17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Section 5
Northern California
ccmsrn
LABORATORIES
GC/MS Semi-volatiles
QC Data Summaries
Includes the following where applicable:
• Method Blank Summaries
• Blank Spike Summaries
• Matrix Spike and Duplicate Summaries
Cif
11 12 of 17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Method Blank Summary
Job Number:
Account:
Project:
C32292
WPFORS Walking Point Farms - Sherwood OR
Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
Page 1 of 1
Sample
OP9529-MB
File ID DF Analyzed By
Y24862.D 1 02/07/14 MT
Prep Date
02/07/14
Prep Batch Analytical Batch
OP9529 EY1135
The QC reported here applies to the following samples:
C32292-1
CAS No. Compound
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
90-12-0
91-57-6
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthy lene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g, h, i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene
F luoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1, 2, 3 -cd)pyrene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries
4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene -d5
321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl
1718-51-0 Terphenyl-d14
Method: SW846 8270C
Result RL MDL Units Q
ND 500 220
ND 500 230
ND 500 160
ND 500 100
ND 500 100
ND 500 100
ND 500 130
ND 500 100
ND 500 100
ND 500 120
ND 500 100
ND 500 220
ND 500 130
ND 500 230
ND 500 240
ND 500 230
ND 500 170
ND 500 100
78%
75%
95%
Limits
15-101%
15-104%
56-123%
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
13 of 17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicate Summary
Job Number: C32292
Account: WPFORS Walking Point Farms - Sherwood OR
Project: Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
Page 1 of 1
Sample
OP9529-BS
OP9529-BSD
File ID DF
Y24863. D 1
Y24864. D 1
Analyzed By
02/07/14 MT
02/07/14 MT
Prep Date
02/07/14
02/07/14
Prep Batch
OP9529
OP9529
Analytical Batch
EY1135
EY1135
The QC reported here applies to the following samples:
C32292-1
CAS No. Compound
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
218-01-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
90-12-0
91-57-6
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthy lene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g, h, i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene
F luoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1, 2, 3 -cd)pyrene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Method: SW846 8270C
Spike BSP BSP BSD BSD Limits
ug/kg ug/kg % ug/kg % RPD Rec/RPD
2500 1970 79 1740 70
2500 2010 80 1760 70
2500 2270 91 2120 85
2500 2410 96 2260 90
2500 2480 99 2350 94
2500 2390 96 2290 92
2500 2410 96 2190 88
2500 2450 98 2230 89
2500 2410 96 2250 90
2500 2510 100 2310 92
2500 2500 100 2320 93
2500 2090 84 1840 74
2500 2480 99 2260 90
2500 1980 79 1790 72
2500 1970 79 1750 70
2500 1890 76 1730 69
2500 2230 89 2020 81
2500 2410 96 2330 93
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries BSP
4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene -d5
321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl
1718-51-0 Terphenyl-d14
83%
78%
97%
BSD
74%
70%
95%
Limits
15-101%
15-104%
56-123%
12
13
7
6
5
4
10
9
7
8
7
13
9
10
12
9
10
3
34-112/28
33-115/28
59-111/21
72-122/22
71-120/22
67-123/24
57-134/24
74-126/25
73-125/22
59-132/23
69-117/21
42-112/24
60-131/21
33-110/30
33-107/30
32-121/31
57-113/21
63-120/20
* = Outside of Control Limits.
w
N
amt
14of17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Section 6
Northern California
ccmsrn
LABORATORIES
GC Semi-volatiles
QC Data Summaries
Includes the following where applicable:
• Method Blank Summaries
• Blank Spike Summaries
• Matrix Spike and Duplicate Summaries
0)
11 15 of 17
ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Method Blank Summary
Job Number:
Account:
Project:
C32292
WPFORS Walking Point Farms - Sherwood OR
Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
Page 1 of 1
Sample
OP9530-MB
File ID DF Analyzed By
PP033559.D 1 02/07/14 RV
Prep Date
02/07/14
Prep Batch Analytical Batch
OP9530 GPP1097
O)
The QC reported here applies to the following samples:
C32292-1
CAS No. Compound
12674-11-2 Aroclor 1016
11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221
11141-16-5 Aroclor 1232
53469-21-9 Aroclor 1242
12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248
11097-69-1 Aroclor 1254
11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries
877-09-8
877-09-8
2051-24-3
2051-24-3
Tetrachloro-m-xy lene
Tetrachloro-m-xy lene
Decachlorobiphenyl
Decachlorobiphenyl
Result
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
85%
83%
108%
90%
Method: SW846 8082
RL MDL Units Q
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Limits
20
50
50
50
50
50
20
38-109%
38-109%
49-138%
49-138%
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
t r _ i 16 of 17
▪ ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicate Summary
Job Number: C32292
Account: WPFORS Walking Point Farms - Sherwood OR
Project: Walking Point Farms - Soil Testing
Page 1 of 1
Sample
OP9530-BS
OP9530-BSD
File ID DF
PP033560.D 1
PP033561.D 1
Analyzed By
02/07/14 RV
02/07/14 RV
Prep Date
02/07/14
02/07/14
Prep Batch
OP9530
OP9530
Analytical Batch
GPP 1097
GPP 1097
The QC reported here applies to the following samples:
C32292-1
CAS No. Compound
12674-11-2 Aroclor 1016
11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries
877-09-8
877-09-8
2051-24-3
2051-24-3
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
Decachlorobiphenyl
Decachlorobiphenyl
Spike BSP BSP
ug/kg ug/kg %
400
400
BSP
81%
77%
104%
86%
364 91
406 102
BSD
80%
77%
107%
89%
Method: SW846 8082
BSD BSD
ug/kg
361 90
415 104
Limits
38-109%
38-109%
49-138%
49-138%
Limits
RPD Rec/RPD
1 46-114/22
2 54-127/21
* = Outside of Control Limits.
t f 17 of 17
▪ ACCUTEST
C32292
LABORATORIES
Trinity/
Consultants
MEMORANDUM
To: Dylan Van Demark, Biochar Now
Cc: James Gaspard, Biochar Now
From: Carla Manzi, Trinity Consultants
Date: February 12, 2025
RE: Biochar Now LLC: Proposed Biochar Production Facility at NGL Water Solutions County Road 6, Fort
Lupton, Co - Process Description & Emissions Summary
Trinity Consultants (Trinity) is preparing this memorandum on behalf of Biochar Now to provide an overview
of the biochar manufacturing process and anticipated emissions from the proposed biochar production
facility at the NGL Water Solutions County Road 6 property in Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado.
Facility Overview
Biochar Now plans to construct a new biochar production facility at the NGL Water Solutions County Road 6
property in Fort Lupton, Colorado. The proposed facility will manufacture biochar using a controlled heating
process known as pyrolysis to convert raw wood into biochar while maintaining emissions below the Denver
Metro — North Front Range (DMNFR) Title V permitting thresholds. The DMNFR area is currently classified as
a severe nonattainment area for ozone. As such, the Title V major source thresholds are 25 tons per year
(tpy) of NOx and VOC, and 100 tpy for all other criteria pollutants (CO, PM, and S02).
The proposed facility will be similar to the company's existing Berthoud, Weld County, Colorado, operation,
which already diverts thousands of tons of clean construction and demolition (C&D) waste wood from
landfills by converting it into biochar. The Fort Lupton facility will further enhance these efforts, significantly
increasing C&D recycling capacity in the Front Range while promoting environmental sustainability and
protecting public health in Colorado.
The proposed facility will operate as a synthetic minor source and will produce significantly lower NOx and
VOC emissions than nearby industrial sources.
Process Description
Raw wood will be delivered by truck, sorted, shredded, and loaded into kilns, where it will undergo the
pyrolysis process. Each kiln will be fitted with a natural gas -fired afterburner to maintain high temperatures
and control emissions. Once pyrolysis is complete, the kilns are moved to a designated cooling area. The
resulting biochar will then be transported to an enclosed building for unloading into trucks before being
shipped off site for further processing, packaging, and distribution. Daily operations will be limited to
maintain emissions below the DMNFR Title V permitting thresholds.
1. Raw Material Handling: Wood logs are received by truck, sorted, and stored before processing. The
logs are then shredded and screened to reduce wood size before being loaded into kilns.
2. Pyrolysis in Biochar Kilns: Wood material is loaded into kilns. Each kiln is then fitted with a
removable afterburner to control emissions from individual kilns. Pyrolysis within the kiln is initiated by a
natural gas -fired kiln burner that is a component of the kiln itself. Once the pyrolysis is initiated, the kiln
burner is turned off as the pyrolysis process is self-sustaining and does not require additional natural
February 2025 Biochar Now LLC
Fort Lupton Facility Page 2 of 5
gas combustion. The kiln's integral seal -cover lid is then opened, and the afterburner is used to control
kiln emissions.
3. Biochar Cooling: After pyrolysis, kilns are cooled before unloading. There are no emissions from the
kilns during the cool -down period.
4. Kiln Emptying: Once cooled, the biochar is transported to a kiln emptying area inside an enclosed
building, where it is unloaded into a covered truck. The biochar is then hauled to the Berthoud facility
for final processing, packaging, and distribution.
Facility Emissions Overview
The table below presents the estimated maximum PM, PMlo, PM2.5, fugitive PM, NOx, CO, VOC, and
methanol emissions for the proposed facility. The emissions were calculated using the methodologies
described below. The proposed facility will qualify as a synthetic minor source of emissions, similar to
Biochar Now's existing biochar production facility in Berthoud. A synthetic minor source is a source that has
potential emissions that exceed the major source threshold(s) but have implemented emission controls or
some other federally enforceable limit to cap potential emissions below the Title V permitting thresholds.
(Note that emission estimates are based on projected operations and are subject to change depending on
final facility design.)
Table 1 Maximum Estimated Emissions for the Fort Lupton Facility
Pollutant
Expected
Actual
Emissions
Potential
Emissions
Potential
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Before
Controls
(tons/yr)
After
Controls
(tons/yr)
PM
0.7
0.7
0.7
PM10
0.6
0.6
0.6
PM2.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
Fugitive
PM
3.1
3.1
3.1
Fugitive
PM10
1.1
1.1
1.1
NOx
24
24
24
CO
14
14
14
VOC
5.9
117
5.9
Highest
(Methanol)
Individual
HAP
2,300 lbs/yr
46,000
lbs/yr
2,300
lbs/yr
Emissions from the pyrolysis process:
PM/PMio/PM2.5, NOx, CO, VOC, and methanol emissions from the biochar kilns are based on emission factors
derived from a 2021 source test report conducted at Biochar Now's Berthoud facility (see attached 2021
Emissions Testing Report) and include an additional 25%-50% safety factor. The afterburner control
efficiency of 95% was applied to all uncontrolled VOC and volatile hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission
rates.
The table below presents a summary of the calculated emission factors for a single kiln. Biochar Now will
limit the daily and annual kiln processing rates to remain below DMNFR Title V thresholds.
February 2025
Biochar Now LLC — Fort Lupton Facility
Page 3of5
Table 2 — Single Kiln Emission Factors
Single Kiln Emission Factors
Pollutant
Stack Test
Result i
Emission
Factor 2
Units
PM .,
0.113
0.14
lb/ton
processed
Plyilo'
0.113
0.14
lb/ton
processed
PM2 5 `
0.113
0.14
lb/ton
processed
NOX4
0.425
0.53
lb/hr
V005
1.076
1.61
lb/ton processed
CO6
0.219
0.33
lb/hr
Methanol
0.212
0.32
lb/ton processed
1 Emission factors as measured m the afterburner stack.
2 All emission factors based on April 2021 stack test with multiplying factor as shown below.
PM emission factor multiplier:
4 NOx emission factor mutiplier:
VOC emission factor mutiplier:
CO emission factor mutliplier:
McOH emission factor multiplier:
Multiplier Notes
1.25
1.25
1.50
1.5
1.5
Stack test factor is the maximum measured for any class of PM.
Emissions measured at stack exit. See uncontrolled estimate below.
Emissions measured at stack exit. See uncontrolled estimate below.
® Emissions from feedstock handling (shredding and kiln loading):
PM/PM1o/PM2.5 emissions from feedstock handling (shredding and kiln loading) are calculated based on the
maximum throughput of feedstock, and emission factors obtained from the table in the memorandum
"Particulate Matter Potential to Emit Emission Factors from Activities at Sawmills, Excluding Boilers, Located
in Pacific Northwest Indian Country", May 8, 2014, from Dan Meyer, US EPA Region 10. These emissions are
expected to be insignificant.
Emissions from kiln unloading:
PM/PMio/PMz.s emissions from product handling are calculated based on published factors in AP -42 Section
11.19.2 — Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing. Emission factors in lb/ton are
multiplied by the maximum material throughput in tons. These emissions are expected to be insignificant.
► Haul road emissions:
Potential emissions from haul roads were calculated using the methods presented in AP -42, 5th Edition,
Section 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads (Nov 2006) and are assumed to be similar to those from the existing Biochar
Now plant in Berthoud.
Air Quality Impact and Emissions Comparison
The figures below show maps of the area surrounding the proposed site, highlighting NOx and VOC
emissions from various surrounding facilities in tpy.1 The proposed biochar site is marked with an "X," and
surrounding emission sources are represented by green circles of varying sizes, corresponding to their
actual reported NOx and VOC emission levels. The maps also include a boundary to delineate the 15 km
radius assessment area for air pollution sources relative to the proposed site.
1 Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Air Quality Data. Available at:
https://www.colorado.gov/airquality/ss map wm.aspx Search parameters: Proposed facility coordinates (Lat: 40.02804, Long:
-104.78019), search radius of 15 km.
February 2025
Biochar Now LLC — Fort Lupton Facility Page 4 of 5
As shown in the figures below, the proposed biochar facility, whose NOx emissions will be limited to below
25 tpy and around 6 tpy of VOC, will produce significantly lower NOx and VOC emissions than existing
nearby oil and gas facilities, natural gas processing plants, and power plants.
Figure 1: Actual NOx Emissions from Facilities Near the Proposed Site
i
Figure 2: Actual VOC Emissions from Facilities Near the Proposed Site
February 2025 Biochar Now LLC
Fort Lupton Facility Page 5 of 5
Odor Considerations
In terms of odor control, Biochar Now does not anticipate odor concerns at the proposed facility. The
existing Berthoud plant has not reported any obnoxious odor (or really any odor). While long-term storage
sites might develop a subtle mildewy smell associated with wet wood, the proposed facility will operate with
continuous processing; thus, long-term storage is not anticipated.
Attachments
► Biochar Now — Berthoud, Colorado 2021 Emissions Source Test Report, Appendix D
wn
cseiV
O>
r=4`''
Hit
SOURCE TEST REPORT
2021 EMISSIONS TESTING
BIOCHAR NOW
KILNS 56, 65 and 74
BERTHOUD, COLORADO
Prepared For:
Biochar Now
P .O. Box 1832
Loveland, Colorado 80513
For Submittal To:
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Air Pollution Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
P repared By:
Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC
990 West 43rd Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80211
Document Number: GP043AS-007255-RT-644
Test Dates: April 13th through 15th, 2021
S ubmittal Date: May 13th, 2021
MM U a
Cfiter i_OP
MONTROSE
AIR QUALITY SERVICES
Biochar Now Berthoud, Colorado
2021 Emissions Source Test Report
REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION
All work, calculations, and other activities and tasks performed and presented in this document
were carried out by me or under my direction and supervision. I hereby certify that, to the best of
my knowledge, Montrose operated in conformance with the requirements of the Montrose Quality
Management System and ASTM D7036-04 during this test project.
S ignature:
Name: Jeff Goldfine
Date:
Title:
May 13, 2021
Client Project Manager
I have reviewed, technically and editorially, details, calculations, results, conclusions, and other
appropriate written materials contained herein. I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the presented material is authentic, accurate, and conforms to the requirements of the Montrose
Quality Management System and ASTM D7036-04.
S ignature:
Name: Timothy Wojtach
Date:
Title'
May 13, 2021
Account Manager
FACILITY CERTIFICATION
I have reviewed this document and agree that the information contained herein is true, accurate,
and complete, to the best of my knowledge.
S ignature:
Name:
Date:
Title'
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 2 of 381
V\
I MONTROSE
AIR QUAl ITY SERVI([S
Biochar Now Berthoud, Colorado
2021 Emissions Source Test Report
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
KILN 56 (KILN 2)
APRIL 13th, 2021
Parameter/Units Average Results
Filterable Particulate Matter (PM)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Particulate Matter (PM1o)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Total Particulate Matter (PM/PMIo/PM2.5)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Opacity3
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Total Hydrocarbons, as Propane (VOC)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Methanol (MeOH)
lb/hr
lb/ton
3 Opacity results are calculated as the highest six -minute average observed.
0.00677
0.0562
0.00816
0.0677
0.00687
0.0570
0.0104
0.0862
0.0
0.425
3.53
0.179
1.49
<0.00497
<0.0412
<8.99 x 10-4
<7.47 x 10-3
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 8 of 381
fisAL MONTROSE
AIR QUALITY SERVICES
Biochar Now Berthoud, Colorado
2021 Emissions Source Test Report
TABLE 1-3
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
KILN 65 (KILN 1)
APRIL 14th, 2021
Parameter/Units Average Results
Filterable Particulate Matter (PM)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Particulate Matter (PM1o)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Total Particulate Matter (PM/PMIo/PM2.5)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Opacity'.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Total Hydrocarbons, as Propane (VOC)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Methanol (MeOH)
lb/hr
lb/ton
4 Opacity results are calculated as the highest six -minute average observed.
0.0109
0.102
0.0121
0.113
0.0100
0.0941
0.0157
0.147
0.0
0.417
3.91
0.0598
0.561
<0.00426
<0.0400
<4.36 x 10-4
<4.09 x 10-3
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 9 of 381
fisAL MONTROSE
AIR QUALITY SERVICES
Biochar Now Berthoud, Colorado
2021 Emissions Source Test Report
TABLE 1-4
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE EMISSIONS RESULTS -
KILN 74 (KILN 3)
APRIL 15th, 2021
Parameter/Units Average Results
Total Particulate Matter (PM)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Particulate Matter (PM1o)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Total Particulate Matter (PM/PMIo/PM2.5)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Opacity5
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Total Hydrocarbons, as Propane (VOC)
lb/hr
lb/ton
Methanol (MeOH)
lb/hr
lb/ton
5 Opacity results are calculated as the highest six -minute average observed.
0.00691
0.0604
0.0108
0.0942
0.00948
0.0828
0.0131
0.114
0.0
0.363
3.17
0.219
1.91
<0.00617
<0.0538
<0.00124
<0.0106
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 10 of 381
fisAL MONTROSE
AIR QUALITY SERVICES
PROJ-007255
Biochar Now
Kiln #56
4/14/2021
EPA Method 2 Data
Run # 1
Start Time 8:28
Stop Time 10:40
2
11:47
13:58
1 2
3
15:00
17:16
3 Average
DS
Pbar
Pg
Cp
VA Pavg
TS
A
Pg
Md
MS
PS
Ts(abs)VS
Q
Q
Inputs
Stack Diameter (inches)
Barometric Pressure ("Hg)
Stack Static Pressure ("H2O)
Pitot Tube Coefficient (unitless)
Avg. Velocity Head of Stack Gas V("H2O)
Stack Gas Temperature (°F)
Calculations
Stack Area (ft2)
Stack Static Pressure ("Hg)
Stack Gas Molecular Weight, dry basis (lb/lb-mole)
Stack Gas Molecular Weight, wet basis (lb/lb-mole)
Absolute Stack Pressure ("Hg)
Absolute Stack Gas Temperature (°R )
Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Stack Gas Dry Volumetric Flow Rate (dscf/hr)
Stack Gas Dry Volumetric Flow Rate (dscf/min)
EPA Method 4 Data
24.0
25.12
-0.01
0.84
0.0881
1189
3.14
0.00
29.96
28.34
25.12
1649
9.63
25,307
422
1
24.0 24.0
25.12 25.12
-0.01 -0.01
0.84 0.84
0.1000 0.1001
1276 891 1118
3.14 3.14
0.00 0.00
29.87 29.90
28.31 28.92
25.12 25.12
1736 1351 1578
11.2 9.80 10.22
28,134 33,373 28,938
469 556 482
2 3 Average
Vic
Vm
Y
AH
Tm
Pm
Tm
Vwc(std)
Vm(std)
Bws
Inputs
Volume of Water Condensed (mL)
Volume of Stack Gas Collected (dcf)
Meter Calibration Factor (unitless)
Pressure Differential Across Orifice ("H2O)
Temperature at Gas Meter (°F)
Calculations
Absolute Pressure at Gas Meter ("Hg)
Absolute Temperature at Gas Meter i°R)
Volume of Water Condensed (scf)
Sample Gas Volume (dscf)
Stack Gas Moisture Content (%/100)
166.0
55.770
0.9912
0.64
33.0
25.17
493
7.81
49.78
0.136
EPA Method 3A, 7E, 10 and 25A Data 1
174.3
62.608
0.9912
0.76
50.0
25.18
510
8.20
54.04
0.132
121.1
74.913
0.9912
1.09
62.1
25.20
522.1
5.70
63.22
0.0827
2 3
153.8
64.430
0.9912
0.83
48.4
25.18
508
7.24
55.68
0.117
Average
O2 (%vd)
CO2 (%vd)
NOx (ppmvd)
CO (ppmvd)
TVOC (ppmvw as C3H8)
TVOC (ppmvd as C3H8)
9.54
9.87
96.4
220
2.10
2.43
Mass Emission Calculations (Using EPA Methods 1-4) 1
11.2
8.91
144
50.9
<1.0
<1.2
8.99
9.64
126
12.1
<1.0
<1.1
2 3
9.91
9.47
122
94.3
1.37
1.56
Average
NO), (lb/hr)
NO), (lb/ton raw feed)
CO (lb/hr)
CO (lb/ton raw feed)
TVOC (lb/hr as C3H8)
TVOC (lb/ton raw feed as C3H8)
*Kiln processed 2,120 lb of raw feed in 8.80 hours
0.291
2.42
0.405
3.36
0.00703
0.0584
0.482
4.01
0.104
0.864
<0.00371
<0.0308
0.500
4.15
0.0293
0.243
<0.00416
<0.0346
0.425
3.53
0.179
1.49
0.00497
0.0412
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 88 of 381
Kiln # 56
Test Performed For:
Source(s) Tested:
Test Condition:
Test(s) Performed:
Run Number
Biochar Now, LLC Testing Performed By:
Berthoud Plant / Colorado Montrose Air Quality Services
Kiln # 56
Pilot Batch Process of Treated Wood
5/202
Run 1 Run 2
Project Manager:
Jeff Goldfine
Run 3 Average
Date of Run 4/14/21 4/14/21 4/14/21
Emission Test Run Time Began - Ended
Oxygen Concentration
Carbon Dioxide Concentration
Isokinetic Sampling Rate
Stack Temperature
Stack Temperature
Moisture Content
Stack Gas Velocity
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions
Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions
Batch Time
Raw feed processed
%(dry)
%(dry)
%
°F
°C
% volume
f/s
acfm
scfm
dscfm
hr
lb
0828-1040 1147-1358
9.54 11.2
9.9 8.91
102.6 100.2
1189 1276
643 691
13.6 13.2
9.63 11.2
1,816 2,115
488 540
422 469
1500-1716
8.99
9.64
98.8
891
477
8.27
9.80
1,849
607
556
9.91
9.47
1118
604
11.7
10.22
1,927
545
482
8.80
2,120
Visible Emissions, Highest Six Minute Average
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Particulate Concentration, Filterable
Particulate Emissions, Filterable
Particulate Emissions, Filterable
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00245 0.00128 0.00132 0.00168
0.00885 0.00516 0.00628 0.00677
0.0735 0.0429 0.0522 0.0562
Particulate Concentration, Condensable
Particulate Emissions, Condensable
Particulate Emissions, Condensable
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.000775 0.00134 0.000561 0.000892
0.00280 0.00539 0.00268 0.00362
0.0233 0.0448 0.0222 0.0301
PKa Emissions, Total
PM1a Emissions, Total
lb/hr 0.00873 0.00885 0.00689 0.00816
lb/ton 0.0725 0.0735 0.0572 0.0677
PM2.5 Emissions, Total
PM2.5 Emissions, Total
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00705 0.00787
0.0585 0.0653
0.00569 0.00687
0.0473 0.0570
Particulate Concentration, Total
Particulate Emissions, Total
Particulate Emissions, Total
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00322 0.00263 0.00188 0.00258
0.0117 0.0106 0.00896 0.0104
0.0967 0.0876 0.0744 0.0862
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 89 of 381
PROJ-007255
Biochar Now
Kiln #65
4/13/2021
EPA Method 2 Data
Run # 1
Start Time 8:11
Stop Time 10:34
2
11:57
14:09
1 2
3
15:25
17:45
3 Average
DS
Pbar
Pg
Cp
VA Pavg
TS
A
Pg
Md
MS
PS
Ts(abs)VS
Q
Q
Inputs
Stack Diameter (inches)
Barometric Pressure ("Hg)
Stack Static Pressure ("H2O)
Pitot Tube Coefficient (unitless)
Avg. Velocity Head of Stack Gas V("H2O)
Stack Gas Temperature (°F)
Calculations
Stack Area (ft2)
Stack Static Pressure ("Hg)
Stack Gas Molecular Weight, dry basis (lb/lb-mole)
Stack Gas Molecular Weight, wet basis (lb/lb-mole)
Absolute Stack Pressure ("Hg)
Absolute Stack Gas Temperature (°R )
Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Stack Gas Dry Volumetric Flow Rate (dscf/hr)
Stack Gas Dry Volumetric Flow Rate (dscf/min)
EPA Method 4 Data
24.0 24.0 24.0
25.16 25.16 25.16
-0.01 -0.01 -0.01
0.84 0.84 0.84
0.0982 0.1301 0.1045
1068 1226 1162 1152
3.14 3.14 3.14
0.00 0.00 0.00
29.81 29.83 29.68
28.35 28.35 28.46
25.16 25.16 25.16
1528 1686 1622 1612
10.3 14.4 11.3 12.0
29,733 37,436 31,309 32,826
496 624 522 547
1 2 3 Average
Vic
Vm
Y
off
Tm
Pm
Tm
Vwc(std)
Vm(std)
Bws
Inputs
Volume of Water Condensed (mL)
Volume of Stack Gas Collected (dcf)
Meter Calibration Factor (unitless)
Pressure Differential Across Orifice ("H2O)
Temperature at Gas Meter (°F)
Calculations
Absolute Pressure at Gas Meter ("Hg)
Absolute Temperature at Gas Meter i°R)
Volume of Water Condensed (scf)
Sample Gas Volume (dscf)
Stack Gas Moisture Content (%/100)
165.5
62.464
0.9912
0.79
38.1
25.22
498.1
7.79
55.29
0.123
EPA Method 3A, 7E, 10 and 25A Data 1
223.6
85.899
0.9912
1.02
54.0
25.24
514
10.52
73.74
0.125
151.1
70.482
0.9912
1.06
51.5
25.24
511.5
7.11
60.81
0.105
2 3
25.23
508
8.47
63.28
0.118
Average
O2 (%vd)
CO2 (%vd)
NOx (ppmvd)
CO (ppmvd)
TVOC (ppmvw as C3H8)
TVOC (ppmvd as C3H8)
10.1
8.77
72.7
52.8
<1.0
<1.1
Mass Emission Calculations (Using EPA Methods 1-4) 1
11.0
8.68
116
11.9
<1.0
<1.1
11.4
7.68
127
14.4
<1.0
<1.1
2 3
10.8
8.38
105
26.4
<1.0
<1.1
Average
NO), (lb/hr)
NO), (lb/ton raw feed)
CO (lb/hr)
CO (lb/ton raw feed)
TVOC (lb/hr as C3H8)
TVOC (lb/ton raw feed as C3H8)
*Kiln processed 2,040 lb of raw feed in 9.57 hours
0.258
2.42
0.114
1.07
<0.00388
<0.0364
0.519
4.87
0.0324
0.304
<0.00490
<0.0459
0.474
4.44
0.0327
0.307
<0.00400
<0.0376
0.417
3.91
0.0598
0.561
<0.00426
<0.0400
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 92 of 381
Kiln # 65
Test Performed For:
Source(s) Tested:
Test Condition:
Test(s) Performed:
Run Number
Biochar Now, LLC Testing Performed By:
Berthoud Plant / Colorado Montrose Air Quality Services
Kiln # 65
Pilot Batch Process of Treated Wood
5/202
Run 1 Run 2
Project Manager:
Jeff Goldfine
Run 3 Average
Date of Run 4/13/21 4/13/21 4/13/21
Emission Test Run Time Began - Ended
Oxygen Concentration
Carbon Dioxide Concentration
Isokinetic Sampling Rate
Stack Temperature
Stack Temperature
Moisture Content
Stack Gas Velocity
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions
Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions
Batch Time
Raw feed processed
%(dry)
%(dry)
%
°F
°C
% volume
f/s
acfm
scfm
dscfm
hr
lb
0811-1034 1157-1409 1525-1745
10.1 11.0 11.4 10.8
8.77 8.68 7.68 8.38
97.0 103.0 101.3 100.4
1068 1226 1162 1152
576 663 628 622
12.3 12.5 10.5 11.8
10.3 14.4 11.3 12.0
1,946 2,707 2,130 2,261
566 713 583 621
496 624 522 547
- 9.57
2,040
Visible Emissions, Highest Six Minute Average
OA
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Particulate Concentration, Filterable
Particulate Emissions, Filterable
Particulate Emissions, Filterable
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00413 0.00152 0.00155 0.00240
0.0175 0.00815 0.00692 0.0109
0.165 0.0765 0.0650 0.102
Particulate Concentration, Condensable
Particulate Emissions, Condensable
Particulate Emissions, Condensable
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.000753 0.00127 0.000989 0.00101
0.00320 0.00681 0.00443 0.00481
0.0300 0.0639 0.0415 0.0451
PKo Emissions, Total
PM1a Emissions, Total
lb/hr 0.0149 0.0123 0.00906 0.0121
lb/ton 0.140 0.115 0.0850 0.113
PM2 5 Emissions, Total
PM25 Emissions, Total
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.0116 0.0107
0.109 0.101
0.00775 0.0100
0.0727 0.0941
Particulate Concentration, Total
Particulate Emissions, Total
Particulate Emissions, Total
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00488 0.00280 0.00254 0.00341
0.0207 0.0150 0.0113 0.0157
0.195 0.140 0.106 0.147
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 93 of 381
PROJ-007255
Biochar Now
Kiln #74
4/15/2021
EPA Method 2 Data
Run # 1
Start Time 10:20
Stop Time 12:44
2
13:50
15:58
1 2
3
16:58
19:04
3 Average
DS
Pbar
Pg
Cp
VA Pavg
TS
A
Pg
Md
MS
PS
Ts(abs)VS
Q
Q
Inputs
Stack Diameter (inches)
Barometric Pressure ("Hg)
Stack Static Pressure ("H2O)
Pitot Tube Coefficient (unitless)
Avg. Velocity Head of Stack Gas V("H2O)
Stack Gas Temperature (°F)
Calculations
Stack Area (ft2)
Stack Static Pressure ("Hg)
Stack Gas Molecular Weight, dry basis (lb/lb-mole)
Stack Gas Molecular Weight, wet basis (lb/lb-mole)
Absolute Stack Pressure ("Hg)
Absolute Stack Gas Temperature (°R )
Stack Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Stack Gas Dry Volumetric Flow Rate (dscf/hr)
Stack Gas Dry Volumetric Flow Rate (dscf/min)
EPA Method 4 Data
24.0 24.0 24.0
24.92 24.92 24.92
-0.01 -0.01 -0.01
0.84 0.84 0.84
0.0986 0.1063 0.0945
1233 1273 1019 1175
3.14 3.14 3.14
0.00 0.00 0.00
29.76 29.78 29.66
28.00 28.20 28.49
24.92 24.92 24.92
1693 1733 1479 1635
11.0 12.0 9.79 10.94
27,576 29,787 29,650 29,004
460 496 494 483
1 2 3 Average
Vic
Vm
Y
off
Tm
Pm
Tm
Vwc(std)
Vm(std)
Bws
Inputs
Volume of Water Condensed (mL)
Volume of Stack Gas Collected (dcf)
Meter Calibration Factor (unitless)
Pressure Differential Across Orifice ("H2O)
Temperature at Gas Meter (°F)
Calculations
Absolute Pressure at Gas Meter ("Hg)
Absolute Temperature at Gas Meter i°R)
Volume of Water Condensed (scf)
Sample Gas Volume (dscf)
Stack Gas Moisture Content (%/100)
200.3
62.438
0.9912
0.79
46.2
24.98
506
9.43
53.87
0.149
EPA Method 3A, 7E, 10 and 25A Data 1
173.6
61.457
0.9912
0.74
48.4
24.97
508
8.17
52.79
0.134
142.0
68.993
1.0071
0.91
48.5
24.99
509
6.68
60.23
0.100
2 3
0.128
Average
O2 (%vd)
CO2 (%vd)
NOx (ppmvd)
CO (ppmvd)
TVOC (ppmvw as C3H8)
TVOC (ppmvd as C3H8)
11.5
8.09
104
192
2.64
3.10
Mass Emission Calculations (Using EPA Methods 1-4) 1
11.7
8.22
125
109
<1.0
<1.2
11.0
7.62
85.2
16.8
1.27
1.41
2 3
11.4
7.98
105
106
<1.64
<1.89
Average
NO), (lb/hr)
NO), (lb/ton raw feed))
CO (lb/ton raw feed)
CO (lb/hr)
TVOC (lb/hr as C3H8)
TVOC (lb/ton raw feed as C3H8)
*Kiln processed 2,000 lb of raw feed in 8.73 hours
0.342
2.98
0.385
3.36
0.00979
0.0855
0.444
3.88
0.235
2.05
<0.00394
<0.0344
0.302
2.63
0.0361
0.315
0.00477
0.0417
0.363
3.17
0.219
1.91
<0.00617
<0.0538
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 96 of 381
Kiln #74
Test Performed For:
Source(s) Tested:
Test Condition:
Test(s) Performed:
Run Number
Biochar Now, LLC
Berthoud Plant / Colorado
Kiln #74
Pilot Batch Process of Treated Wood
5/202
Run 1
Run 2
Testing Performed By:
Montrose Air Quality Services
Project Manager:
Jeff Goldfine
Run 3 Average
Date of Run
Emission Test Run Time Began - Ended
Oxygen Concentration
Carbon Dioxide Concentration
Isokinetic Sampling Rate
Stack Temperature
Stack Temperature
Moisture Content
Stack Gas Velocity
Stack Gas Flow @ Actual Conditions
Stack Gas Flow @ Standard Conditions
Stack Gas Flow @ Dry Standard Conditions
Batch Time
Raw feed processed
%(dry)
%(dry)
°F
°C
% volume
f/s
acfm
scfm
dscfm
hr
lb
4/15/21
1020-1244
11.5
8.09
102.0
1233
667
14.9
11.0
2,078
540
460
4/15/21
1350-1558
11.7
8.22
92.5
1273
690
13.4
12.0
2,260
573
496
4/15/21
1658-1904
11.0
7.62
106.0
1019
548
10.0
9.79
1,846
549
494
11.4
7.98
1175
635
12.8
10.9
2,061
554
484
8.73
2,000
Visible Emissions, Highest Six Minute Average
°I0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Particulate Concentration, Filterable
Particulate Emissions, Filterable
Particulate Emissions, Filterable
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00263
0.0104
0.0906
0.00152
0.00646
0.0565
0.000922
0.00390
0.0341
0.00169
0.00691
0.0604
Particulate Concentration, Condensable
Particulate Emissions, Condensable
Particulate Emissions, Condensable
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00112
0.00440
0.0384
0.00237
0.01007
0.0879
0.000948
0.00401
0.0350
0.00148
0.00616
0.0538
PM1a Emissions, Total
PM1a Emissions, Total
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.0113
0.0991
0.0144
0.126
0.00663
0.0579
0.0108
0.0942
PM2.5 Emissions, Total
PM25 Emissions, Total
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00938
0.0819
0.0132
0.115
0.00589
0.0514
0.00948
0.0828
Particulate Concentration, Total
Particulate Emissions, Total
Particulate Emissions, Total
gr/dscf
lb/hr
lb/ton
0.00375
0.0148
0.129
0.00389
0.0165
0.144
0.00187
0.00792
0.0691
0.00317
0.0131
0.114
G P043AS-007255-RT-644 97 of 381
2/3/25, 4:20 PM
Keller Williams Realty, Inc. Mail - EA Defense opposition to Brighton facility
Robert Demaree <bob.demaree@kw.com>
EA Defense opposition to Brighton facility
James Gaspard Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 4:44 PM
To: Robert Demaree <bob.demaree kw.com>
Cc: Dylan Van Demark , Michael Dente <michael.dente@kw.com>, Michael Hall
<pagoda.mapping@gmai .com>
I am not wasting much time responding to this letter. The issue is the authors know nothing about what they are talking
about. They simply were paid to google articles that cut in their favor without understanding that "all biochars are not
created equal". Attached is a paper that was published in 2009 that stated that most basic premise. The attached article
should be our basic response.
Every article they cite is from biochar technologies around the world that have nothing in common with our patented
technology. None of the biochars created in the technologies they cite have similar properties that we have in our
biochar. All those technologies in the papers they cited were fast pyrolysis or gasifiers. They have nothing to do with the
carbon we produce. The discussions about lack of markets or lack of efficacy do not apply to the carbon we produce.
We have a market for our carbon.
We meet all CDPHE guidelines for our emission permits, so their comments about emissions are irrelevant to us. We
meet all noise requirements, etc. Basically, when they start their list with the heading "violations of municipal law" they
should be disciplined as attorneys for misrepresentations. The best they could have said was "possible violations of
municipal law", but then none of the listed issues applies to our technology and we have operated for 14 years in the
State of Colorado legally permitted by all relevant agencies.
James Gaspard
CEO
Biochar Now
Colorado Site Address: 19500 County Road 7, Berthoud, CO 80513
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1832, Loveland, CO 80539-1832
www.biocharnow.com
. .II All biochars are not created equal - Hugh and Frank.pdf
1352K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=a76626f293&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1822893040568157588&simpl=msg-f: 1822893040568157588 1/1
CDPHE Disproportionately Impacted Communities Map
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers 7d0cf560blle41 foa4d323c4e6c9oe
Ob
We need to stay out of these areas as part of the site selection process for CDPHE air permits
Nonattainment area
More restrictive air quality control area by CDPHE
EXHIBIT
i17
Layers x
Get started
You can explore maps, add layers,
and more without signing in. To save
your work, sign in before creating
your map.
Learn more about Map Viewer
CDPHE Disproportionately
Impacted Communities
(ARCHIVED Version
September 20 1)
X
R 06
N 107th St
rfIle
_J
r
Broornfieild
BroonifieLd
ni
W 120b-
W 117th Ave
i
66
Firestone
Frederick:
•—e
I �
r
I, 5251
1
F 128th Ave
E 160th Ave
r
t.
/ Barr Lake
State Park
Highway 52
irty
tti
a
Ft
Hlud
tsCon
CDPHE Disproportionately Impacted .. .
a
ft
C6
c
Properties
x
Cbetween layers in the map.
Information
Symbology
tise the selector above to switch
CDPHE Disproportionately Impacted
Communities (ARCHIVED Version
September 2021)
f
Appearance
Blending
ir Normal
Transparency
0%
0
A
a
Layers x
Get started
You can explore maps, add layers,
and more without signing in_ To save
your work, sign in before creating
your map.
Learn more about Map Viewer
CDPHE Disproportionately
Impacted Communities
((ARCHIVED Version
September 2021)
O Add
M i M
b
Highway 52
k
co
creek
Wattenberg.
27
U,
ist
County Road 4
County Road 2 1/2
County Road 31
a
-Pit-1Jt
County Road 12
County Road 31
EE PtOU , 1unoj
5184 Jr
A
Smith
Mound
Mathews Ave
SE Re°d Aiuno ,
County Road a
County Road 6
GAI
n3
H-
County Road 35
- —E 168th *4 a �reb�+k n..r r — — E -168th -Ave — — — —E 1.68th-Are
521
LE peed Munoz
County Road 3)
Courn
q
1
CDPHE Disproportionately impacted ...
Properties
X
County•f
Esri, NASA, NGA, USES, FE.MA. City of Fort Lupton, CO, Esri, T omTor , Garmin., SateGraph, G,eo T echnologies, Inc METI/NASA, US__ __ Powered by Esri
lase the selector above to switch
between layers in the map.
Information
Symbology
CDPHE Disproportionately Impacted
Communities (ARCHIVED Version
September 2021)
f
Appearance
Blending
ir Normal
Transparency
0%
0
25% 50% 75%
V
teje
_
it
a
l
itt
s
i
'a flan
a
win Lakes
Buena i
4:Denver Metro/Nc:rtk'i Front Range 8 -Hour Ozone NoriattainrnentArea
Red reather"'
-:Lak.es-• _..xa�' �s Nutional
., Grassland
: Wood Iar..dt
Palle wt,
,C,
Colorado
,61 rN_nq
Pawnee
art Mcrqanc
Brush
a
Lin
0
Huyo
St€. III nJ
0 -
Akron
R _ F Ia�jI.erSeib'
EXHIBIT
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE
In
tit
.0
18
Dear neighbor,
Biochar Now is in process of permitting a conversion facility on the subject property, shown
below, located south of and adjacent to CR 6 and approximately 0.25 miles west of CR 31.
As part of this process, we want to reach out to the nearby property owners to explain the
proposed operation and answer any questions you may have. It is our desire to respectfully
integrate into your community and to mitigate impacts of our operation.
Please consider attending an informal neighborhood meeting, to be held at the:
Fort Lupton Public and School Library
Fort Lupton Community Room 2
370 S Rollie Ave, Fort Lupton, CO 80621
10:00 Aid, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2024
The goals of this meeting are to:
• Explain biochar and the proposed on -site operations.
• Provide you with details about the project, including the permitting processes.
• Address concerns and answer questions that you may have about the project.
We hope to see you there!
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DETAILS
On September 24, 2024, the applicant team mailed notice to the surrounding property
owners identified on the Weld County Property Portal 500 -foot buffer report, listed below.
BROWN RACHEL E LIVING TRUST
4510 COUNTY ROAD 6
FORT LUPTON. CO 806218216
HALE TONY LYNN
4760 Cc: U NTY ROAD I
F=)RT LI_!PT 'N.'.1O 80621821b
NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ LLC
865 ALBION ST STE 400
DENVER, CO 802204809
FAUDOA FERNANDO
•ii 45/12 C O l_1 N TY ROAD 6
FORT LUPTON: C€=> >801;.2'182.' 6
YARBROUGH JERI E
451,
t
r=:, U N TY ROAD 6
FORT LUPTON_, CO 806218216
SACK GEORGE A.
4323 cod._l NT's' ROAD 6
FORT LUPTON. CC) 8062/82/5
This meeting was intended to provide the community with accurate information and to assist
in addressing any concerns in a positive manner.
Included in this document is a copy of the mailed letter and the attendance sheet.
MEETING MINUTES
The following topics were discussed:
■ What is Biochar, what will occur on this property, our desire to integrate into the area
■ Co -permitting efforts with NGL & OGED for injection wells; USR & WOGLA timeline
• Mitigation efforts and options to reduce perceived land use conflicts
■ Irrigation practices and business impacts
• Air emissions & pollution questions
■ Decrease in property values and quality of life
■ Site selection & compatibility complaints
• General environmental health and contamination concerns
• Stockpile heights and on -site equipment types
■ Kiln operated process and temperature
■ History of traffic incidents on CR 6 and possibility of increase
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEET
10:00 AM, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2024
Name
EmaRR
SheJdie
to\ettn
01
1\161
bOtioey000vieji(possi
I
Q)\iefl
5 \atr✓icc7hti1e9ryia.-il
.C°
SAG
fee
,,u-dsM
SUeQSreLAOLCW\
if Litt
/Qc
'gall Y114le
IYd
le COril
Alla
tat
K(c 't'v&c�7
Y/€ ( al
2MY-CA sk- c -a0 Qra-avvicaLs62-1--
foN/<..
9 auk
I. C
W
CV\CknC4
cz Yit
eacut±
V p%Ka(
ouGHs'•cr&-SeP
lei fr.
�e
"ilk
0 I ell i 1r
2arbeirh 0 36DallYYLou
/57n%y�v611Z
di �
�v+-rso
J
to en
Nnegi
beer
� a3
Colleen K. O'Neil, Ed.D.
October 6, 2025
EXHIBIT
19
Dear Weld County Commissioners and Weld County Planners Aungst and Snyder:
On behalf of myself and my family, I am writing, again, to express my strong opposition to
the proposed NGL Biochar Project (Case No. USR24-0019) located near 14512 County
Road 6, Fort Lupton, CO 80621. We are asking that you deny this request.
My family, consisting of myself, my mom and my brother live in three separate homes
approximately 2,500 feet from this proposed site. This operation would fundamentally
change the character of our agricultural community and pose direct risks to human health,
animal safety, and environmental quality.
It has been brought to our attention that the same company operates another biochar
facility in Berthoud, Colorado, which has an extensive record of air -quality violations
documented by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).
The highlevel violations appear below and will be further outlined by Alexa McKay, Esq. at
the hearing.
• 2020 Compliance Advisory (Case No. 2020-126):
CDPHE found that Biochar Now exceeded permitted emission limits for nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). Testing showed kiln emissions reaching
0.180 lb/hr NOx and 1.25 lb/hr CO, compared to permitted limits of 0.14 lb/hr NOx
and 0.12 lb/hr CO. These rates translate to annual emissions of up to 120 tons per
year of CO, which is more than ten times the legal limit
• 2023 Early Settlement Agreement (Case No. 2023-051):
Biochar Now again violated its permit, exceeding allowed emissions of NOx, VOCs,
and CO, and operating well beyond its permitted hours of engine use. The company
paid $31,500 in penalties to the State of Colorado for these violations.
• 2023 Title V Permit Application (CDPHE #23OPWE558):
In its own filing, Biochar Now acknowledged that its Berthoud plant qualifies as a
major stationary source of air pollution under the federal Clean Air Act due to NOx
emissions exceeding 25 tons per year, placing it in the highest category for
regulation within the Denver Metro —North Front Range ozone non -attainment area.
These violations and the company's ongoing status as a major source demonstrate a
pattern of emissions control problems that directly contradict assurances that such
operations are safe.
Weld County Case No. USR24-0019 Page l 1
Colleen K. O'Neil, Ed.D.
Health and safety implications
Biochar kilns release carbon monoxide, fine particulates (PM 2.5), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These are all pollutants known to worsen
respiratory conditions, harm cardiovascular health, and contribute to ground -level ozone
formation. These pollutants pose documented health risks to people and animals living
nearby.
Fine particulate exposure in livestock has been linked to respiratory irritation, reduced
performance, and stress responses. For people, long-term exposure increases risks of
asthma, lung disease, and heart conditions.
My brother and my mom are one of those individuals that will drastically be affected
by these emissions. My mom, at 84 years old, just battled lung cancer. And, while she is
winning that battle today, emissions from this facility could certainly cause
further damage.
My brother is wheelchair bound and diagnosed with lung and heart sarcoidosis. These
emissions will almost certainly cause secondary issues and could further exacerbate an
already deadly condition.
Given that the proposed site sits within a dry, wind -prone agricultural zone, emissions
and airborne dust could easily drift across neighboring properties, directly affecting
families, pets, and livestock. The 24 -hour operation and transport traffic also raise serious
fire -safety and air -quality concerns.
Request
While biochar has beneficial uses, its production requires industrial -scale combustion.
Siting a continuous -burn kiln facility in a rural residential area less than half a mile from
homes, barns, water sources, and animals is inappropriate. The company's compliance
history shows repeated failure to operate within safe emission limits despite multiple
opportunities to correct violations.
For these reasons, we respectfully request denial of Special Use Permit Case No.
USR24-0019.
This operation presents unacceptable environmental, health, and safety risks to nearby
residents and animals, and its approval would contradict Weld County's responsibility to
protect public welfare and uphold air -quality standards.
Thank you for your time, diligence, and continued commitment to representing the best
interests of Weld County residents.
Weld County Case No. USR24-0019 Page 12
Colleen K. O'Neil, Ed.D.
Sincerely,
Colleen K. O'Neil, Ed.D.
e: colleenkoneil@gmail.com
p: 970-302-9517
On behalf of self, Colleen O'Neil, 1865 County Road 31, Fort Lupton, CO, and Robert
O'Neil, 1869 County Road 31, Fort Lupton, CO, and Sharon O'Neil, 14952 County Road 6,
Fort Lupton, CO
BioChar Now Kiln Image Addendum
Weld County Case No. USR24-0019
Page 13
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health & Environment
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION
b
.0
a
EXHIBIT
20
COMPLIANCE ADVISORY
CASE NO. 2017-123
AIRS NO. 123-9E2C
INSPECTION DATES: May 24, 2017
July 11, 2017
TEST DATES: September 6-8, 2017
U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7016 2710 0000 3004 8588
MAILING DATE: November 22, 2017
SOURCE CONTACT: Jim Geist
IN THE MATTER OF BIOCHAR NOW, LLC
This Compliance Advisory provides format notice, pursuant to § 25-7-115(2),
C.R.S., of alleged violations or noncompliance discovered during the Air Pollution
Control Division's ("Division") inspection and/or review of records related to Biochar
Now, LLC's Facility identified below. The Division is commencing this action because
it has cause to believe that the compliance issues identified below may constitute
violations of the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act ("the Act") and its
implementing regulations.
Please be aware that you are responsible for complying with applicable State
air pollution requirements and that there are substantial penalties for failing to do so.
Pursuant to the enforcement authority provided the Division by § 25-7-115, C.R.S.,
any person who violates the Act, its implementing regulations or any permit issued
thereunder may be issued an order for compliance that can include permit revocation
and assessment of penalties of up to $15,000 per day of such violation in accordance
with § 25-7-122, C.R.S. The issuance of this Compliance Advisory does not in any way
limit or preclude the Division from pursuing additional enforcement options
concerning this inspection/review. Also, this Compliance Advisory does not constitute
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Deriartrrent of Putt Health 6 Environment
a bar to enforcement action for violations not specifically addressed in this
Compliance Advisory.
Failure to respond to this Compliance Advisory by the date indicated at the end
of this Compliance Advisory may be considered by the Division in the subsequent
enforcement action and the assessment of penalties. Furthermore, the Division's
enforcement process contemplates a full and final resolution of the compliance issues
herein addressed, and those that may result from further review, in a timely manner.
If at any time throughout the process of reaching such a resolution the Division
determines that the Parties cannot agree to the dispositive facts, compliance
requirements and/or penalty assessments (if any) associated with this Compliance
Advisory, or a resultant enforcement action, the Division may exercise its full
enforcement authority allowed under the law.
Biochar Now, LLC ("Biochar") owns and operates a biochar production facility
at 19500 County Road 7, Berthoud, Weld County, Colorado ("Facility"). The Facility is
subject to the terms and conditions of Colorado Construction Permit Number
15WE1395 Issuance #1, Initial Approval issued to Biochar on March 8, 2016 ("Issuance
1"); Colorado Construction Permit Number 15WE1395 Issuance #2, Initial Approval
issued to Biochar on July 11, 2016 ("Issuance 2"); Colorado Construction Permit
Number 15WE1395 Issuance #3, Initial Approval issued to Biochar on March 13, 2017
("Issuance 3"); Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Subpart A -
General Provisions ("Subpart A"), and Subpart IIII—Standards of Performance for
Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines ("Subpart IIII"); Colorado
Air Quality Control Statutes; and Colorado Air Quality Control Commission ("AQCC")
Regulations.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AND FACTS
On May 24, 2017 and July 11, 2017, Mr. Jeffrey Bishop, of the Division,
inspected the Facility. On September 6-8, 2017, compliance testing was conducted at
the Facility. Mr. Bishop observed the testing on September 6, 2017. Based on Mr.
Bishop's inspections, and a review of records related to the Facility including the test
report received by the Division on October 13, 2017, the Division has identified the
following compliance issues:
A. Pursuant to Issuance 1 and Issuance 2, Condition 1 and AQCC
Regulation Number 3, Part B, § III.G.1, Biochar shall submit a Notice
of Startup to the Division no later than fifteen days after
commencement of operation under the permit. Biochar commenced
operations under Issuance 1 on March 28, 2016, and submitted an NOS
as required on April 4, 2016. Biochar relocated, then re -commenced
operations on August 15, 2016 under Issuance 2, for which it
submitted an NOS as required on July 28, 2016. Although Biochar
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.8ov/cdphe
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 2
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
L'epartrrent of P..itzlrr Health & Emuoninot
submitted timely NOS forms, both submissions incorrectly indicate
that the diesel engines listed in the permit (AIRS Points 004 and 005)
are in operation at the Facility. Based on statements made by the
source and observations made at the inspections, AIRS Points 004 and
005 were not installed and have never operated at the Facility.
Instead, Biochar installed and operated unpermitted diesel engines at
the Facility. Biochar failed to submit accurate NOS to the Division,
violating Issuance 1 and Issuance 2, Condition 1 and AQCC Regulation
Number 3, Part B, § III.G.1.
B. Pursuant to Issuance 2 and Issuance 3, Condition 2 and AQCC
Regulation Number 3, Part B, § III.G.2, Biochar shall self -certify
compliance with the permit conditions within one hundred and eighty
(180) days after commencement of operations or issuance of the
permit, whichever is later. The deadline to complete self -certification
for Issuance 2 was January 7, 2017. The deadline to complete self -
certification for Issuance 3 was September 9, 2017. Biochar has not
completed self -certification at this time. Biochar failed to complete
self -certification, violating Issuance 2 and Issuance 3, Condition 2 and
AQCC Regulation Number 3, Part B, § III.G.2.
C.
Pursuant to Issuance 2, Condition 4, 21, and 22 and AQCC Regulation
Number 3, Part B, § III.G.2, Biochar shall, within one hundred and
eighty (180) days after commencement of operation or issuance of the
permit, whichever is later, complete all initial compliance testing and
sampling as required in the permit and submit the results to the
Division as part of the self -certification process.
i. Pursuant to Issuance 2, Condition 21, Biochar shall
demonstrate compliance with the opacity requirements of
Permit Number 15WE1395 Condition 13 using EPA Method 9 to
measure opacity from three kiln/afterburner units (AIRS Point
001) within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the permit
issuance. The deadline to complete opacity testing on AIRS
Point 001 for Issuance 2 was January 7, 2017. Biochar did not
conduct initial opacity testing on AIRS Point 001 until May 24,
2017. Biochar failed to complete the EPA Method 9 opacity
observation on AIRS Point 001 within the 180 day time limit,
violating Issuance 2, Condition 21.
ii. Pursuant to Issuance 2, Condition 22, Biochar shall
demonstrate compliance with the annual emission limits listed
in Permit Number 15WE1395, Condition 8, within one hundred
and eighty (180) days after commencement of operations or
permit issuance, whichever is later. To do so, Biochar must
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.8ov/cdphe
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 3
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
L'epartrrent of P..itzlrr Health & Emuoninot
conduct testing on a total of 3 kiln/afterburner units (AIRS
Point 001) to measure the emission rates, on an hourly basis,
over the entire process duration. The deadline to complete
the emissions testing on AIRS Point 001 for Issuance 2 was
January 7, 2017. Biochar did not conduct initial emissions
testing on AIRS Point 001 until May 24, 2017. Biochar failed to
complete the initial emissions testing on AIRS Point 001 within
the 180 day time limit, violating Issuance 2, Condition 22.
D. Pursuant to Issuance 2, Conditions 5 and 19; and AQCC Regulation
Number 3, Part B, § III.G.7, Biochar shall, within one hundred and
eighty (180) days after commencement of operation or issuance of the
permit, whichever is later, submit an operation and maintenance
(O&M) plan and record keeping format demonstrating how Biochar will
maintain compliance with the requirements of the permit. The
deadline to submit the OEtM plan and record keeping format for
Issuance 2 was January 7, 2017. Biochar did not submit an O&M plan
u ntil August 18, 2017, and did not submit a record keeping format
u ntil September 8, 2017. Biochar failed to submit the OEtM plan and
record keeping format within 180 days, violating Issuance 2,
Conditions 5 and 19, and AQCC Regulation Number 3, Part B, § III.G.7.
E. Pursuant to Issuance 1 and Issuance 2, Conditions 6 and 27 and
Issuance 3, Conditions 6 and 29, Biochar shall, within thirty (30) days
after commencement of operation or issuance of the permit,
whichever is later, mark the permit number on the subject equipment
for ease of identification. The deadline to mark the subject
equipment for Issuance 1 was April 7, 2016. The deadline to mark the
subject equipment for Issuance 2 was August 10, 2016. The deadline
to mark the subject equipment for Issuance 3 was April 12, 2017. At
the inspections on May 24, 2017 and July 11, 2017, Mr. Bishop
observed that the kilns (AIRS Point 001) were marked with a permit
n umber. No other equipment was marked as required. Biochar failed
to mark permit numbers on all subject equipment, violating Issuance
1 and Issuance 2, Conditions 6 and 27 and Issuance 3, Conditions 6 and
29.
F. Pursuant to Issuance 2 and Issuance 3, Condition 7, Biochar shall,
within one hundred and eighty (180) days after commencement of
operation or issuance of the permit, whichever is later, submit the
manufacturer, model number, and serial number (equipment
information) of the subject equipment. The submission deadline for
Issuance 2 was January 7, 2017. The submission deadline for Issuance
3 was September 9, 2017. Biochar did not submit the equipment
information until September 22, 2017. Biochar failed to submit the
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.8ov/cdphe
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 4
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
L'epartrrent of P..itzlrr Health & Emuoninot
equipment information within 180 days, violating Issuance 2 and
Issuance 3, Condition 7.
G. Pursuant to Permit Number 15WE1395, Condition 8, annual emissions
from the kiln (AIRS Point 001) must not exceed 2.89 tons of PM1 o and
1.59 tons of PM2.5. The results of the September 6-8, 2017 testing
conducted on equipment identified as Kiln 5, Kiln 26, and Kiln 35
showed average emissions of 3.26 tons per year of PMio and 3.24 tons
per year of PM2.5. Biochar failed to comply with the PM1 o and PM2.5
annual emission limits for AIRS Point 001, violating Permit Number
15WE1395, Condition 8.
H. Pursuant to Issuance 3, Condition 12, Biochar shall process only
"clean" wood as defined in the permit. The permit states that clean
lumber and wood waste do not include pressure treated wood or
manufactured wood products that contain adhesives or resins. Biochar
stockpiled and used as fuel prohibited materials including processed
wood, pressed wood, and construction pallets that failed to meet the
definition of "clean." Biochar processed wood that did not meet the
definition of "clean" as defined in the permit, violating Issuance 3,
Condition 12.
Pursuant to Subpart 1111, § 60.4204(b), the diesel engines operating at
the Facility must comply with the Tier 4 interim specifications. Based
on information provided by Biochar in its July 18, 2017 APEN
application for AIRS Point 008, the Isuzu diesel generator engine does
not meet the Tier 4 interim specifications. Biochar failed to ensure
that its diesel engine complies with the Tier 4 interim specifications,
violating Subpart 1111, § 60.4204(b).
J. Pursuant to Permit Number 15WE1395, Condition 18 and AQCC
Regulation Number 3, Part B, § III.D.2, I. D.2, Biochar is located in an ozone
non -attainment area and is subject to Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements. The RACT requirements for Biochar
are comprised of compliance with Permit Number 15WE1395
Conditions 10, 12, 14, and 15. As discussed in Paragraph H above,
Biochar violated the terms of Permit Number 15WE1395Condition 12.
Biochar failed to comply with RACT requirements, violating Permit
Number 15WE1395, Condition 18 and AQCC Regulation Number 3, Part
B,§III.D.2.
K. Pursuant to § 25-7-114.1, C.R.S. and AQCC Regulation Number 3, Part
A, § II.A, no person shall allow emission of air pollutants from any
facility, process, or activity which constitutes a stationary source
from which air pollutants are to be emitted unless and until an Air
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.8ov/cdphe
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 5
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
L'epartrrent of P..itzlrr Health & Err:uonrrn=t
Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) has been filed with the Division.
Biochar installed and operated two diesel engines at the Facility prior
to submitting APENs, violating § 25-7-114.1, C.R.S. and AQCC
Regulation Number 3, Part A, § II.A. Biochar submitted the APENs for
the diesel engines on July 18, 2017.
L. Pursuant to § 25-7-114.2, C.R.S. and AQCC Regulation Number 3, Part
B, § I I.A.1, no person shall commence construction of any stationary
source without first obtaining or having a valid construction permit
from the Division. Biochar installed and continues to operate two
diesel engines at the Facility without obtaining a valid construction
permit, violating § 25-7-114.2, C.R.S. and AQCC Regulation Number 3,
Part A, § II.A.1.
It is important to resolve the above -referenced issues as soon as possible.
Therefore, the Division encourages Biochar to immediately identify those compliance
issues that are not in dispute and to rectify those issues before the upcoming
Compliance Advisory meeting. In accordance with § 25-7-115(3)(a), C.R.S., the
Compliance Advisory meeting will be held within thirty (30) days of the Division's
issuance of the Compliance Advisory in this matter. The Division also requests that
Biochar provide the Division with a brief written response to the alleged violations
("Source Response"). The Source Response should identify the undisputed compliance
issues and, if an alleged violation is disputed, the basis for the dispute. The Division
requests that Biochar provide the Source Response, to the attention of Jeffrey Bishop,
no later than ten business days before the Compliance Advisory meeting. At the
u pcoming meeting, the Division will confirm the actions taken to rectify the
u ndisputed compliance issues and proceed with unresolved matters as outlined below.
If you have any questions regarding this Compliance Advisory, the Division's
enforcement processes, or any related issues, please refer to the APCD Enforcement
Manual located at https: / /www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP-
EnforcementandComplianceGuide.pdf and/or contact the Division personnel identified
below.
I I . COMPLIANCE ADVISORY MEETING
Biochar is requested to contact the Division and schedule a meeting to:
➢ Discuss the disputed Compliance Advisory issues and answer any
remaining questions you may have;
➢ Submit information necessary to successfully show that the
deficiencies and noncompliance issues (or any portion of them) are
not violations of Colorado's air pollution laws; and
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
John W. Hickentooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 6
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of F&ibIr. Healrh & Err:ironrreent
Establish a mutually acceptable schedule and guidelines for the full
and final resolution of any remaining deficiencies and
noncompliance issues in a timely manner.
Please contact the compliance officer identified below by no later than
November 30, 2017 to schedule a meeting with the Division to discuss the
Compliance Advisory. The Division currently anticipates that the meeting will
take place during the week of December 11, 2017.
Sarah Goff, Enforcement Advisor (303-692-6331)
cc: Shannon McMillan, APCD
Paul Carr, APCD
Arch Crouse, APCD
Michael Stovern, EPA (Region VIII)
File
Jeffrey Bishop, APCD
Beth Pilson, APCD
Heather Wuollet, APCD
Tom Roan, Attorney General's Office
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.8ov/cdphe
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
7I
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
L'epartrrent of P..itzlrr Health & Emuoninot
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health & Environment
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION
COMPLIANCE ADVISORY
CASE NO. 2020-126
AIRS NO. 123-9E2C
TESTING DATES: October 8-9,
11, and 14, 2019
U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7017 0660 0000 0139 3786
MAILING DATE: June 16, 2020
SOURCE CONTACT: Jim Geist
IN THE MATTER OF BIOCHAR NOW, LLC
This Compliance Advisory provides format notice, pursuant to § 25-7-115(2),
C.R.S., of alleged violations or noncompliance discovered during the Air Pollution
Control Division's ("Division") inspection and/or review of records related to Biochar
Now, LLC's Facility identified below. The Division is commencing this action because
it has cause to believe that the compliance issues identified below may constitute
violations of the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act ("the Act") and its
implementing regulations.
Please be aware that you are responsible for complying with applicable State
air pollution requirements and that there are substantial penalties for failing to do so.
Pursuant to the enforcement authority provided the Division by § 25-7-115, C.R.S.,
any person who violates the Act, its implementing regulations or any permit issued
thereunder may be issued an order for compliance that can include permit revocation
and assessment of penalties of up to $15,000 per day of such violation in accordance
with § 25-7-122, C.R.S. The issuance of this Compliance Advisory does not in any way
limit or preclude the Division from pursuing additional enforcement options
concerning this inspection/review. Also, this Compliance Advisory does not constitute
a bar to enforcement action for violations not specifically addressed in this
Compliance Advisory.
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Polis, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
Failure to respond to this Compliance Advisory by the date indicated at the end
of this Compliance Advisory may be considered by the Division in the subsequent
enforcement action and the assessment of penalties. Furthermore, the Division's
enforcement process contemplates a full and final resolution of the compliance issues
herein addressed, and those that may result from further review, in a timely manner.
If at any time throughout the process of reaching such a resolution the Division
determines that the Parties cannot agree to the dispositive facts, compliance
requirements and/or penalty assessments (if any) associated with this Compliance
Advisory, or a resultant enforcement action, the Division may exercise its full
enforcement authority allowed under the law.
Biochar Now, LLC ("Biochar") owns and operates the Berthoud Plant, a Biochar
production facility located at 19500 Weld County Road 7, Weld County, Colorado
("Facility"). The Facility is subject to the terms and conditions of the Colorado
Construction Permit Number 15WE1395, Issuance 4, Final Approval, issued to Biochar
on April 25, 2018 ("Permit Number 15WE1395"), Colorado Air Quality Control
Statutes, and Colorado Air Quality Control Commission ("AQCC") Regulations.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AND FACTS
On October 8-9, 11, and 14, 2019, compliance testing was conducted at the
Facility. Testing was conducted on the exhaust stack of four kilns (AIRS Point 001): 7,
8, 21, and 40. The testing on October 8, 2019 (Kiln 40) was observed by Jeffrey
Bishop, of the Division. On November 20, 2019, the Division received the test report.
Based on the Division's observations made during testing and a review of records
related to the Facility, including the test report received on November 20, 2019, the
Division has identified the following compliance issues:
A. Pursuant to Permit Number 15WE1395, Condition 4, the afterburners
must be maintained and operated to ensure satisfactory performance.
The permitted kiln emission factors are 0.14 pounds per hour
("lb/hr") NOx and 0.12 lb/hr CO. Compliance testing conducted on
October 8, 2019 indicated Kiln 40 NOx emissions of 0.180 lb/hr and CO
emissions of 1.25 lb/hr. Testing conducted October 9, 11, and 14,
2019 indicated 3-Kiln1 NOx emissions of 0.238 lb/hr. From September
8, 2017 (date of last passing test) to present, Biochar has failed to
operate the afterburners to ensure the permitted kiln emission factors
for NOx and CO are achieved, and therefore, Biochar has failed to
operate the afterburners to ensure satisfactory performance, violating
Permit Number 15WE1395, Condition 4.
1 Average of test results for Kilns 7, 8, and 21.
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Polls, Governor 1 Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
B. Pursuant to Permit Number 15WE1395, Condition 14, Biochar must
demonstrate continued compliance with the annual kiln emission
limits listed in Condition 2 by completing a source compliance test
every two years. The average of 3 kiln/afterburner emission rates
must demonstrate compliance with the annual emission limits listed in
Condition 2. Any compliance test conducted to show compliance with
an annual emission limitation must have the results projected up to
the annual averaging time by multiplying the test results by the
allowable number of operating hours for that averaging time. The
permitted kiln emission limits are 13.5 tpy NOx and 11.6 tpy CO.
Compliance testing conducted on October 8, 2019 indicated Kiln 40
NOx emissions of 17.34 tpy and CO emissions of 120.45 tpy. Testing
conducted October 9, 11, and 14, 2019 indicated 3 -Kiln NOx emissions
of 22.93 tpy. From September 8, 2017 (date of last passing test) to
present, Biochar has failed to demonstrate continued compliance with
the annual kiln NOx and CO emission limits, violating Permit Number
15WE1395, Condition 14.
It is important to resolve the above -referenced issues as soon as possible.
Therefore, the Division encourages Biochar to immediately identify those compliance
issues that are not in dispute and to rectify those issues before the upcoming
Compliance Advisory meeting. In accordance with § 25-7-115(3)(a), C.R.S., the
Compliance Advisory meeting will be held within thirty (30) days of the Division's
issuance of the Compliance Advisory in this matter. The Division also requests that
Biochar provide the Division with a brief written response to the alleged violations
("Source Response"). The Source Response should identify the undisputed compliance
issues and, if an alleged violation is disputed, the basis for the dispute. The Division
requests that Biochar provide the Source Response, to the attention of Jen
Schoennagel, no later than ten business days before the Compliance Advisory
meeting. At the upcoming meeting, the Division will confirm the actions taken to
rectify the undisputed compliance issues and proceed with unresolved matters as
outlined below.
If you have any questions regarding this Compliance Advisory, the Division's
enforcement processes, or any related issues, please refer to the APCD Enforcement
Guide located at https: / /www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/inspections-and-
enforcement and/or contact the Division personnel identified below.
I I . COMPLIANCE ADVISORY MEETING
Biochar is requested to contact the Division and schedule a meeting to:
Discuss the disputed Compliance Advisory issues and answer any
remaining questions you may have;
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Polls, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
➢ Submit information necessary to successfully show that the
deficiencies and noncompliance issues (or any portion of them)
are not violations of Colorado's air pollution laws; and
➢ Establish a mutually acceptable schedule and guidelines for the
full and final resolution of any remaining deficiencies and
noncompliance issues in a timely manner.
Please contact the Enforcement Advisor identified below by no later than June
23, 2020 to schedule a meeting with the Division to discuss the Compliance
Advisory. The Division currently anticipates that the meeting will take place
during the week of July 13, 2020.
Jen Schoennagel, Enforcement Advisor (303-692-3233)
To ensure meaningful communication with all Coloradans, the Division offers
free language services. Please let us know if we can provide an interpreter for
anyone attending the Compliance Advisory meeting.
cc:
Shannon McMillan, APCD
Paul Carr, APCD
Heather Wuollet, APCD
Ben Cappa, APCD
Michael Stovern, EPA (Region VIII)
Jeffrey Bishop, APCD
Beth Pilson, APCD
Tom Lovell, APCD
Tom Roan, Attorney General's Office
File
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Polls, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: E847CFE1-56E9-4034-8FO4-1 E3A1356B029
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health & Environment
June 7, 2023
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jordan Gaspard
Biochar Now, LLC
19500 Weld County Road 7
Berthoud, CO 80513
Re: Proposed Early Settlement Agreement in the Matter of BIOCHAR NOW, LLC
AIRS No.: 123-9E2C
Case No.: 2023-051
Dear Jordan Gaspard:
Biochar Now, LLC ("Biochar Now") owns and operates the facility located at
19500 Weld County Road 7, Berthoud, Weld County, Colorado ("Facility"). The Facility
is or was subject to the terms and conditions of the Colorado Construction Permit
Number 15WE1395 Issuance 5, issued to Biochar Now, LLC on October 29, 2020
("Permit Number 15WE1395 Issuance 5"); Colorado Construction Permit Number
15WE1395 Issuance 6, issued to Biochar Now, LLC on July 5, 2022 ("Permit Number
15WE1395 Issuance 6"); Colorado Air Quality Control Statutes; and Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission ("AQCC") Regulations.
The following Facility equipment is relevant to this enforcement action:
AIRS
Point
Permit
Number
Equipment
Description
0071
15WE1395
Diesel
fuel
-fired
Make:
John
Deere
generator
Diesel,
engine:
Model:
4045TF285,
S/N:
20107179,
Design
rate:
78
horsepower,
Relocation
date:
2015
1 The engine associated with AIRS Point 007 was taken offline on July 27, 2022 and replaced by a
temporary engine. Biochar Now submitted an Air Pollutant Emission Notice ("APEN") on November 16,
2022 requesting that the replacement engine be made permanent and the original engine be canceled
in accordance with the Alternative Operating Scenario ("AOS"). The replacement engine (AIRS Point
009) began operation on August 1, 2022.
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.cotorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Potis, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: E847CFE1-56E9-4034-8FO4-1 E3A1356B029
009
15WE1395
Diesel fuel -fired generator engine: Make: Isuzu,
Model: BP-4LE2X, S/N: 7253219, Design rate: 59
horsepower
On September 12, 2022, Danielle Serna, of the Weld County Department of
Public Health Et Environment ("WCDPHE"), a duly delegated representative of the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division ("Division"), inspected the Facility. Based on
the inspection, and a review of records related to the Facility, the Division issued a
Compliance Advisory to Biochar Now on March 31, 2023. On May 3, 2023, the Division
and Biochar Now met to discuss the issues identified in the Compliance Advisory.
Based upon a review of the inspection, records related to the Facility, and the
information provided by Biochar Now, the Division has determined the following:
A. Pursuant to Permit Number 15WE1395, Issuances 5 and 6, Condition 2,
emissions of air pollutants from AIRS Point 007 must not exceed the
limitations in the permit. Compliance with the annual limits must be
determined on a rolling twelve (12) month total. The table below
details rolling 12 -month periods with exceedances of AIRS Point 007
emissions of NOx, VOC and CO during the compliance period.
B.
AIRS
Point
007
Rolling
12 -Month
Emissions
(tons
per
year)
Month
Period
Rolling
Ending
(2022)
12
-
NOx
VOC
CO
January
2.1
1.1
2.2
February
2.1
1.2
2.2
March
2.3
1.3
2.4
April
2.3
1.3
2.4
May
2.5
1.4
2.6
June
2.4
1.3
2.5
July
2.3
1.2
2.4
August
2.2
1.2
2.3
September
2.1
1.2
2.2
Permitted
Limit
2.0
1.1
2.1
Biochar Now failed to limit NOx, VOC, and CO emissions from AIRS
Point 007 to the permitted limits during the rolling 12 -month periods
listed above, violating Permit Number 15WE1395, Issuances 5 and 6,
Condition 2.
Pursuant to Permit Number 15WE1395 Issuance 5, Condition 6 and
Permit Number 15WE1395, Issuance 6, Condition 4, Biochar Now must
limit the diesel consumption at AIRS Point 007 by limiting the
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Potis, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: E847CFE1-56E9-4034-8FO4-1 E3A1356B029
operation of the engine to 6,388 hours per year. Compliance with the
annual AIRS Point 007 process rates must be determined on a rolling
twelve (12) month total. The table below lists rolling 12 -month
periods with exceedances of the AIRS Point 007 annual operating
parameter.
AIRS
Point
007
Rolling
12 -Month
Diesel
Consumption
Rolling
12
-Month
Ending
Period
Hours
of Operation
(2022)
January
6,603
February
6,813
March
7,312
April
7,428
May
7,817
June
7,715
July
7,223
August
6,678
September
6,505
Permitted
Limit
6,388
*Operation of replacement engine under AOS
Biochar Now failed to limit the hours of operation during the rolling
12 -month periods listed above, violating Permit Number 15WE1395
Issuance 5, Condition 6 and Permit Number 15WE1395, Issuance 6,
Condition 4.
The Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, at § 25-7-122(1)(b),
C.R.S., specifies the penalty for such violations. The monetary amount of the
Division's settlement offer specified below takes into account, among other factors,
the magnitude and severity of the violation, cooperation of the company, as well as
the prior history of violations of air quality requirements associated with any of the
company's facilities/operations in the State of Colorado (including a company's
parent or subsidiary relations, if applicable). Settlement offers are based on the
evaluation of the same factors and criteria in all cases. Based upon Biochar Now's
cooperation, and its efforts to bring its operations into compliance with the
regulations and permit conditions identified above, the Division acknowledges that
Biochar Now has appropriately and adequately addressed all compliance issues
identified above. In the interest of settling the matters cited herein, the Division
therefore offers the following settlement in accordance with the Division's settlement
policy.
1. Payment of a reduced penalty in the sum of Thirty -One Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($31,500.00). Payment of the penalty precludes further
enforcement by the Division for the above -described violations against Biochar
Now. The Division retains its authority to take enforcement actions based on
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Potis, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: E847CFE1-56E9-4034-8FO4-1 E3A1356B029
any and all violations not specifically described above. Payment of Thirty -One
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($31,500.00) shall be made in three equal
payments of Ten Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($10,500.00) on or before
the following dates:
a. First payment shall be made by July 15, 2023.
b. Second payment shall be made by September 15, 2023.
c. Third payment shall be made by November 15, 2023.
2. The Division's willingness to accept installment payments is expressly
conditioned upon Biochar Now's continued payments in accordance with the
schedule set forth above. Should Biochar Now fail to make any installment
payment, the entire administrative penalty, at the option of the Division, shall
become due and payable to the Division ten (10) days after the Division notifies
Biochar Now that the balance of the administrative penalty is due.
3. Entering into this settlement shall not constitute an admission of violation of
the air quality laws, or the alleged facts relating thereto, nor shall any third
party infer it to be such an admission in any administrative or judicial
proceeding. However, Biochar Now agrees not to challenge the factual or legal
determinations herein, the Division's authority to bring, or the court's
jurisdiction to hear, any action, insofar as it pertains to the matters contained
herein, to enforce the terms of this settlement agreement. The described
violation will constitute part of Biochar Now's compliance history for any
purpose for which such history is relevant.
This letter constitutes an offer of settlement and is not a demand for payment.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss this offer of settlement. We remain willing
to consider any information you wish to submit related to the violation. Please be
advised, however, that the offer of settlement contained in this letter is predicated
on resolving this matter within fifteen (15) days of the date of this settlement
proposal letter. If you elect to continue the negotiation of this matter beyond that
date, this offer shall be deemed withdrawn, and any penalty mitigation built into this
settlement proposal may be revoked. If you require additional time to evaluate this
settlement proposal or discuss remaining issues with the Division, however, please
contact me regarding your request for an extension of the offer. Any extension of the
offer, if agreed to by the Division, must be confirmed, in writing, by the Division.
If the above terms are acceptable to you, please have the appropriate person
sign and return this letter. Penalty checks shall be made payable to the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, and mailed to:
Air Pollution Control Division
Attn: Heather Wuollet
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Potis, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: E847CFE1-56E9-4034-8FO4-1 E3A1356B029
APCD-SS-B1
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
This offer of settlement, upon being fully endorsed by both the Division and Biochar
Now, shall constitute full and final resolution of the noncompliance issues identified
herein and in the Compliance Advisory issued to Biochar Now.
You may write or call to request a settlement conference if you wish to discuss
the matter with representatives of the Division's compliance staff. If we do not
receive a response from you within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter, we will
assume that you are not interested in resolving this matter as outlined above. Please
call Heather Wuollet, at 720-515-0279, if you have any further questions regarding
this matter.
Sincerely,
�— DocuSigned by:
17DC47B9
Shannon c Wan
Compliance and Enforcement Program Manager
I certify that I am authorized by Biochar Now to execute this settlement
agreement and bind Biochar Now, and any affiliated entities, to the terms and
conditions of this agreement. I have read the above settlement and agree to the
terms and conditions of this offer.
Name: James Gaspard
Title: ceo
DocuSigned by:
jaktAGS ASp
�LEgEF5UFFFl7"4Q4...
Signature Telephone Number
(303) 882-3561 6/8/2O23
cc: Shannon McMillan, APCD
Paul Carr, APCD
Heather Wuollet, APCD
Ben Cappa, APCD
Michael Stovern, EPA (Region VIII)
Jason Long, APCD
Date
Danielle Serna, WCDPHE
Beth Pilson, APCD
Tom Lovell, APCD
Jeffrey Bishop, APCD
Robyn Witte, Attorney General's Office
File
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Potis, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
12/27/23, 10:32 AM
State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Initial TV Completeness Letter: Biochar Now, LLC- Berthoud Plant; OP: 23OPWE558
STATE OF
COLORADO
Burns - CDPHE, Andrew <andrew.burns@state.co.us>
Initial TV Completeness Letter: Biochar Now, LLC- Berthoud Plant; OP: 23OPWE558
1 message
Burns - CDPHE, Andrew <andrew.burns@state.co.us> Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 10:28 AM
To: "jordan.gaspard@biocharnow.com" <jordan.gaspard@biocharnow.com>
Dear Madam,
Please find the completeness letter attached.
Thank you,
Andrew Burns
Title V Permit Engineer
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department or Publ;c Health b Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246
Andrew.Burns@state.co.us I www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/hm
23OPWE558 Timeliness Determination.pdf
161K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=adc4f6be35&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a: r-9135895218719816432&simpl=msg-a:r54932094757662... 1/1
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health & Environment
December 27, 2023
Jordan Gaspard
Managing Director
Biochar Now, LLC
19500 Weld County Road 7
Berthoud, Colorado, 80513
RE:
SUBJECT:
Biochar Now, LLC - Berthoud Plant, FID: 123 - 9E2C, OP: 23OPWE558
Application for Title V Operating Permit
Dear Jordan Gaspard:
We have received your application for an Operating Permit for the above referenced facility on November 3,
2023. Please take note of the following information related to the processing of your application:
Application Shield
An operating permit application is due within one year after a source becomes subject to the Title V
Operating Permit program. An administratively complete application received on or before the due date
entitles the source to an application shield under the provisions of Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B.
. B.
According to the Title V application, Biochar Now - Berthoud Plant, an existing facility located in the ozone
non -attainment area, became subject to Title V permitting requirements upon the reclassification of the
Denver Metro Area/North Front Range region to "Severe" non -attainment, which occurred on November 7th,
2022. The facility is a major stationary source for the following criteria pollutants: NOx (39.8 tpy), as it
exceeds the "Severe" ozone non -attainment major stationary source thresholds of 25 TPY for the pollutant.
As this source became subject to Title V due to an operation of law, per Colorado Regulation No. 3, Section
III.B.2, B.2, the due date is one year after the effective date of the reclassification, making the due date
November 7, 2023. A complete Title V Operating Permit application was submitted for the facility on
November 3, 2023.
The Operating Permit application submitted on November 3, 2023 for the above referenced facility has been
determined to be administratively complete in accordance with the requirements of Colorado Regulation
No. 3, Part C, Sections III . B, C, and D. Since a complete application was submitted prior to the regulatory
deadline, the application shield is hereby granted and is effective as of November 3, 2023.
Fees
Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part A Section VI .A.1 requires the division to charge fees to "...recover the direct
and indirect costs incurred by the Division in processing permit applications, issuing permits, and in
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
Jared Polls, Governor I Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director
conducting a compliance monitoring and enforcement program. Such fees shalt apply without regards to
whether a permit is issued, denied, withdrawn, or revoked." with respect to processing applications and
issuing permits, fees wilt be charged for time spent reviewing the application and drafting the permit and
associated basis document, including researching regulatory and technical issues related to the application
and permit draft as applicable. Chargeable time also includes peer and supervisor review of drafts, as well
as time spent by permit engineers and division management in meetings, phone calls, and responding to
emails. The hourly permit processing fee is $119.00 beginning on July 1, 2021. Please see
https: / /cdphe.colorado.gov/air-emissions/emissions-and-permitting-fees for additional information about
fees.
The Colorado Legislature has directed the Division to inform sources if the time spent processing an
application wilt exceed 30 hours. The Division has determined that the time required to process your
application for renewal of the operating permit wilt exceed 30 hours. Based on our experience in processing
operating permits, we estimate that the total time required to process your application will be between 50
and 200 hours. This letter fulfills the Division's obligation to inform you that the processing time for your
operating permit renewal wilt exceed 30 hours and to provide you with an estimate of the processing time.
Please note that the Division utilizes a quarterly billing system for all operating permits. The bills you
receive will reflect chargeable time for the previous quarter.
Timeline
The Division has eighteen months after a complete application is received to either approve or disapprove
the application for an operating permit (Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section IV.C).
Required Additional Information
The next step in reviewing the application is the Technical Review. If the Division determines that
additional information is necessary to evaluate or take final action on an application, a request will be made
in writing for the information and a reasonable deadline for a response set. If the applicant fails to provide
the requested information or does not meet the deadline, the application shield wilt be revoked and the
Division wilt be unable to continue with the processing and issuance of the permit (Colorado Regulation No.
3, Part C, Section IV. D).
Please note that in accordance with Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part C, Sections IV.B.3 3 and 4 that it is the
sources' responsibility, without notification, to supplement the permit application in the event that errors or
omissions are discovered after the permit application submittal. Additional information must be signed and
certified by the responsible official as to its completeness and accuracy.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions at 303-692-3100 or
cdphe_aped _title _v@state.co.us.
Sincerely,
The Title V Intake Team
Stationary Sources Program
Air Pollution Control Division
12/27/23, 10:33 AM
State.co.us Executive Branch Mail -Additional Information Request: Biochar Now, LLC- Berthoud Plant; OP: 23OPWE558
STATE OF
COLORADO
Burns - CDPHE, Andrew <andrew.burns@state.co.us>
Additional Information Request: Biochar Now, LLC- Berthoud Plant; OP:
23OPWE558
1 message
Burns - CDPHE, Andrew <andrew.burns@state.co.us> Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 10:32 AM
To: "jordan.gaspard@biocharnow.com" <jordan.gaspard@biocharnow.com>
Dear Madam,
Your application failed to include a concurrence letter along with your complete EJ Summary. While your application is
considered administratively complete per the guidance of the "Air Pollution Control Division Guidance for
Incorporating Environmental Justice into Permitting" memo published in July of 2023, the concurrence letter is
required to supplement the application when completed.
If you have not yet received your concurrence letter, a copy of the letter of concurrence from the Division's EJ
Permitting Specialist must be submitted to the title V email box (cdphe_apcd_title_v@state.co.us) within two
weeks of receiving the letter of concurrence. If you have received your concurrence letter, a copy of the letter must be
submitted to the title V email box within two weeks of receiving this request.
Note that this does constitute a request for additional information per Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section
IV.D. Failure to comply with this request will result in the revocation of application shield, if granted.
If, for whatever reason, you are unable to comply with the aforementioned deadline, please notify the division in
writing before the deadline has passed, complete with a rationale and an alternative deadline.
Thank you,
Andrew Burns
Title V Permit Engineer
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Pubhc F-Cet th Er Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246
Andrew.Burns@state.co.us I www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/hm
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=adc4f6be35&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a: r-3208547623957036797&simpl=msg-a:r24002085062980... 1/1
TrinityConsultants
�
1391 N Speer Blvd, Ste 350, Denver, CO 80204 / P 720.638.7647 / trinityconsultants.com
November 2, 2023
Submitted electronically to cdphe apcd title V@state,cosus
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Air Pollution Control Division — Title V Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, APCD-SS-B1
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
RE: Biochar Now, LLC
CDPHE APCD AIRS ID: 123-9E2C
Initial Title V Operating Permit Application
To whom it may concern,
ACB
AIRS: 123-9E2C
Permit #: 23OPWE558
Rcvd: 11/3/2023
On behalf of Biochar Now, LLC, Trinity Consultants is submitting the enclosed initial Title V Operating Permit
application for the Biochar Now Berthoud Plant (Berthoud Plant) located at 19500 Weld County Road 7
Berthoud, CO 80513. The Berthoud Plant operates under Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) Construction Permit 15WE1395, Issuance 6,
issued on July 5, 2022.
Weld County is within the boundaries of the Denver Metro -North Front Range (DMNFR) nonattainment area,
which was reclassified on November 7, 2022, as severe non -attainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard. This
reclassification lowered the Title V permitting thresholds for NOx and VOC for facilities in the DMNFR from
50 to 25 tons per year (tpy). Biochar Now submitted a modification to 15WE1395 in March 2023 to reduce
potential NOx emissions below 25 tpy but a revised permit with enforceable limits less than the major source
threshold will not be issued prior to the effective reclassification date of November 7, 2023. As a result, an
initial Title V application is being submitted to maintain the permit application shield for a timely application.
Biochar Now will withdraw the initial Title V permit application once the synthetic minor construction permit
is issued.
Per CDPHE guidance, submittal of previously submitted and approved emission calculations and APEN forms
for sources included in this initial Title V application are not required since no changes to authorized limits
are being requested.
If you have any questions, or require any additional information on this submittal, please contact me at
giwaszek@trinityconsultants.com or via phone at (303) 349-4673.
Sincerely,
tee -r- 4uce-gai
George Iwaszek
Principal Consultant
cc:
Dylan Van Demark, Biochar Now
Jordan Gaspard, Biochar Now
INITIAL TITLE V PERMIT APPLICATION
Biochar
Nowt-.,
Biochar Now, LLC
Prepared By:
George Iwaszek — Principal Consultant
Kendall Maffet — Consultant
Matthew Petrosky — Associate Consultant
TRINITY CONSULTANTS
1391 N Speer Blvd, Suite 350
Denver, CO 80204
(720) 638-7647
November 2023
Trinity/
Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3. CAM APPLICABILITY
APPENDIX A. TITLE V FORMS
APPENDIX B. FACILITY PLOT PLAN
APPENDIX C. EJ SUMMARY
1-1
2-1
3-1
A-1
B-1
C-2
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants i
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Biochar Now Berthoud Plant (Berthoud Plant) located at 19500 Weld County Road 7 Berthoud, CO
80513 in Weld County. The Berthoud Plant operates under Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) Construction Permit 15WE1395, Issuance 6,
issued on July 5, 2022.
Weld County is within the boundaries of the Denver Metro -North Front Range (DMNFR) nonattainment area,
which was reclassified on November 7, 2022, as severe non -attainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard and
in attainment/unclassified for all criteria pollutants. This reclassification lowered the Title V permitting
thresholds for NOx and VOC for facilities in the DMNFR from 50 to 25 tons per year (tpy). Biochar Now
submitted a modification to 15WE1395 in March 2023 to reduce potential NOx emissions below 25 tpy but a
revised permit with enforceable limits less than the major source threshold will not be issued prior to the
effective reclassification date of November 7, 2023. As a result, an initial Title V application is being
submitted to maintain the permit application shield for a timely application. Biochar Now will withdraw the
initial Title V permit application once the synthetic minor construction permit is issued.
Table 1. Facility PTE Emissions Summary (tons/year)
Emission Source
TSP
PMio
PM2.5
SO2
NOx
VOC
CO
Kilns
(AIRS
001)
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.0
20.2
2.9
1.3
Unpaved
Roads (AIRS
006)
3.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49
kW
Engine (AIRS
009)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
6.5
0.5
1.4
58
kW
Engine (AIRS
010)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
6.6
0.5
1.4
TOTAL
5.5
3.0
1.6
0.9
33.2
4.0
4.2
Severe
NAA
NNSR/Title
V
100
100
100
100
25
25
100
Thresholds
Facility
Severe
Site
NAA
-Wide
NNSR/
Emissions
Title
<
V
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
Thresholds
PSD
Thresholds
250
250
250
250
-
-
250
Facility
PSD
Thresholds
Site
-Wide
Emissions <
YES
YES
YES
YES
-
-
YES
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants
1
2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Biochar Now is a pioneer in the biochar industry with strong engineering, manufacturing, sales, and
administrative personnel focused on making and selling quality biochar on a very large scaler. Biochar is a
black charcoal -like material containing carbon and ashes that is produced from burning organic material
such as agricultural, grass, and forest wastes. The Facility is classified under Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code 2861 (Gum and Wood Chemicals). At the Berthoud Plant, most emissions come
from kiln operations (AIRS 001). The NOx emissions associated with kiln operations are associated with
burning different fuels to power the kiln. The Facility receives power from two generators (AIRS 009 and
AIRS 010) and has permitted fugitive emissions from unpaved roads (AIRS 006). In addition, the Facility
also has insignificant sources such as shredding/loading and packaging.
1 https://biocharnow.com/about/
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants 2-1
3. CAM APPLICABILITY
The Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) rule applies to each pollutant -specific emission unit (PSEU) at
a major source that is required to obtain a Part 70 permit if the PSEU meets all of the applicability criteria
outlined in 40 CFR 64.2(a) as follows:
a) The unit is subject to an emission limitation or standard for the applicable regulated air pollutant (or
a surrogate thereof), other than the exemptions in this subpart;
b) The unit uses a control device to achieve compliance with any emission limitations or standards; and
c) The unit has a potential pre -control device emissions (as defined in this subpart) of the applicable
regulated air pollutant that are equal to or greater than 100 percent of the amount, in tons per year,
required for the source to be classified as a major source.
There are no permitted boilers at the Berthoud Plant per their most recent 2022 CDPHE Construction Permit,
and therefore, the Facility is not subject to CAM.
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants 3-1
APPENDIX A. TITLE V FORMS
The following forms are included in this section.
General Facility Forms:
O P -50 -
OP -1o0
OP -101
O P -102
O P -103
OP -105
Title V Operating Permit Application Form
- General Facility & Contact Information Form
- Source and Site Description Form
- Plant Wide Criteria Air Pollutants Form
- Plant Wide Hazardous Air Pollutants Form
- Insignificant Activities Form
Source Specific Forms:
► Kilns (AIRS ID 123/9E2C/001)
• OP -312 — Kiln Operations Form
• OP -400 — Compliance and Monitoring Form
Der Unpaved Haul Roads (AIRS ID 123/9E2C/006)
• OP -310 — Fugitive Particulate Matter Form
• OP -400 — Compliance and Monitoring Form
49 kW RICE (AIRS ID 123/9E2C/009)
• OP -302 — Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine Form
• OP -400 — Compliance and Monitoring Form
58 kW RICE (AIRS ID 123/9E2C/010)
• OP -302 — Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine Form
• OP -400 — Compliance and Monitoring Form
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants
A-1
General Facility Forms
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants A-2
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Title V Operating Permit Application Form
This form must be included with any application submittal to the Title V Operating Permit Unit
Form OP -50
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
Plant AIRS ID 123 - 9E2C
Number:
1. Instructions
Included on the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -50A) for this
application form. Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Attach a cover letter
describing the purpose of the application package if more room is needed. Any form with missing information
may be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the application shield of
Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. Note that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain
text. See "General Instructions" document for more details.
2.
Permit Application
Type
(check
all
that
apply)
Initial
Renewal
in a cover
-
letter.
Identify
any requested
changes
below or
x
Si nificant Modification
g
Administrative
ownership,
Modification
correct typographical
(e.g.
error,
transfer
of
etc.)
Minor Modification
source wishes
-
to use
The
the
Minor Modification
procedures
under
worksheet
Colorado
Regulation
(Form
OP
No.
-201)
3,
must
Part
also be
C, Section
completed
X.
if
a
Notification
Unit
(APCD
of
PS
Construction
Memo 09-01,
Scenario
Permit
Exempt
#7)
Contact
Contact,
Update
and/or
(Responsible
Billing
Contact)
Official,
Permit
Supplemental
Information
(describe):
Click
here to enter text.
Other
(describe):
Click
here to enter text.
3. General Description - Include brief description describing the purpose of the application package. If more
detail is needed, provide in cover letter.
General
Description
of package
Biochar Now, LLC is submitting this initial Title V Operating Permit application because the
facility is a new Title V source due to the reclassification of the Denver Metro -North Front
Range (DMNFR) nonattainment area as severe non -attainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard,
which lowered the Title V permitting thresholds for NOX and VOC for facilities in the DMNFR
from 50 to 25 tons per year. There are no requested changes to the facility equipment or
emissions associated with this application.
Form Revised August 2023
Page 11 of 5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
a
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -50
4.
Section
"Operating
complete
Forms
Included
5.D
application.
Permit
for
submittal
in the
Form
instructions.
Applicability
Submittal
- Check
Also
Matrix"
the
included
for
forms
more
that
on
direction
the
will
Division
be submitted
webpage
on which
with
is a
forms to
the
guidance
include
application.
document
to comprise
Refer
labeled
a
to
OP
-300 General
Emission Unit,
Quantity:
Number
x_l
OP -50 Application
x_l
OP -100
Facility
Identification
OP
-301
Boiler,
Furnace, and Process
Heater,
Quantity:
Number
x_l
OP -101
Site
Information
x
OP
-302
Engine, Quantity:
2
x_l
OP -102
Plant
Wide
Criteria
Emissions
OP
-303
Tanks,
Quantity:
Number
x_l
OP -103
Plant
Wide
HAP
Emissions
OP
-304
Turbine, Quantity:
Number
OP -104
Permit
Shield,
Quantity:
Number
OP
-305
Coating, Painting,
Fiberglass,
and Solvent
Use,
x
OP
-105
Insignificant
Activities
Quantity:
Number
OP -201
Minor
Modification
OP
-306
Dehydrator,
Quantity: Number
OP -202
Oil
and
Gas
OP
-307
Amine, Quantity: Number
OP
-202.1
Additional
Storage Vessels
g
Quantity:
-
Number
OP
-308
Liquid
qQ
Loadout, Quantity: Number
Y
OP
-309
Fugitive VOC, Quantity:
Number
OP
-202.2
Additional
Dehydrators,
Quantity:
Number
OP
-310
Fugitive
Particulate
Matter,
Quantity:
Number
OP
-311
Incinerator,
Quantity: Number
OP
-202.3
Additional
SI
Engines,
Quantity:
Number
J
OP
-312
Kiln, Quantity:
1
OP
-202.4
Additional
CI
Engines,
OP
-313
Landfill
Quantity:
Number
OP
-314
Separator
p and
Natural
Gas Venting,
g Quantity:
Y :
Number
OP
-202.5
Additional
Fugitive
Emissions,
Quantity:
Number
OP
-315
Routine or
Predictable
Emissions
OP
Additional
Sweetening Units,
OP -315.1
Routine or Predictable
Emissions,
.202.6
Quantity:
Number
Quantity:
Number
OP
-202.7 Additional
Combustion,
x
OP
-400
Compliance
and
Monitoring (Note
that
each
OP -
Quantity:
Number
300 series
form), Quantity:
form
must
3
have an corresponding
OP
-400
OP
-203 CAM, Quantity:
Number
5. Additional Information
A. Initial and Renewal Applications
x Check this box if you are submitting an initial or renewal application. For all other application types,
proceed to Section 5.B.
If you are submitting an initial or renewal application, provide the application due date. See Colorado PS -
Memo 09-01 and PS Memo 22-01 for help with Title V Operating Permit application due dates.
Application Due Date: 11/7/2023
Basis for Application Due Date (Initial Permits Only): New Title V source due to reclassification of the
Denver Metro/North-Front Range Nonattainment area to severe nonattainment area.
B. APEN Attachments
New/revised APENs are required if the facility is requesting a modification that requires a new APEN or
changes information on a previously submitted APEN. Note that as of the updates made to Colorado
Regulation No. 3 effective February 14, 2021, APEN copies are no longer required to be submitted with
applications.
New or revised APENs have been included with this submittal (filing fees must be included).
Form Revised August 2023
Page 12of 5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -50
C.
Check
Confidential/Trade
pages
PS
the
Memo
application
following
including
98-01
for
includes
Secret
box
confidential
acceptable
if any
confidential
Information
confidential/trade
information
confidential
information
must
information
secret
clearly
on
information
the
be
submittals.
following
labeled
has
as
confidential.
pages:
been
Click
submitted
here
with
to
this
application.
text.
The
See
This
enter
D. Submittal
Division is requiring
one electronic
copy
submittal
emailed to
the Air Pollution
Control
Division
to
The
cdphe_apcd_title_V@state.co.us.
The
date
received
by
the
Division will
be
the
date
the
complete
electronic
submittal
is received with
signatures
as stated
in (1)
below.
submittal
must
contain the
following:
The
1.
The
which
source
shall
must
contain
submit
either
a
complete
PDF
copy
of
a
the
scanned
full application
ink
signature.
including
all signature
pages
digital
signatures or
2.
Forms must
also
be submitted
individually
in word
format
(either
.doc or .docx)
For electronic
submittals,
it
is suggested
that
the
permittee
place
multiple
files in a compressed
zip
file
before attaching
to
the email, use optimize/enhance
tools
in Adobe
to reduce
size of
pdf
files, or send
multiple
emails if
there
are
problems
with
file sizes.
If a source is not able
to complete
an electronic
application
as stated
above,
the
permittee should
contact
the
Division at
cdphe_apcd_title_V®state.co.us
to
determine
how to
submit
the application.
Included
on the
APCD
website
is a sample
V
Initial
application
(for an oil and gas exploration
and
Title
production facility) and a general
instruction
document
for using the
V
forms.
Reference either
of these
Title
documents for
further
guidance and
examples
of a complete
submittal.
[UPDATE]
Note
that
as of
April
2023, The
Division is no longer
requiring
hardcopy
submittals
of
the
V
Title
application
forms.
E. Oil and
Gas Sources
If
this
facility
is associated
with
Oil Et Gas activities,
Form OP
-202 must
be completed
if
the
facility
is
submitting
an initial application
or the
facility is requesting
changes
to oil and
gas equipment
and must
be
submitted
for the
application
to
be considered complete.
Oil and Gas SIC
codes include,
but
are not limited
to, 1311,
1321,
and 4922.
Form OP
-202 has
been included with
this
application.
facility is not an oil and
gas facility, and/or
the
facility is not requesting any changes
to the
oil and gas
x
This
equipment.
F. Modeling
If
an emission unit
will
have to go through
a modeling determination as
part
of
a
permit action, APCD-114
and
the
APCD
Permit
Modeling Unit's (PMU)
determination must
be completed
and attached
to
the application.
For
information
about
the
modeling
process, see
the
page
titled
"Air Quality
Modeling
Guidance
for
Permits"
on
the
Division webpage.
Form APCD-114
along with
PMU's
Determination
has
been completed
and attached.
This
application
did not trigger
the need
for a
PMU determination
or APCD-114
form
[x
G.
Environmental
Justice
III.C.14)
As
of
July
15,
and
2023,
a letter
an
of
environmental
concurrence
justice
from the
summary
(See
Division's
Colorado
Environmental
Regulation
Justice
group
No.
3, Part
is required
C,
Section
to
be
submitted
with
all
Title
V initial and renewal
applications,
and minor or significant
modification
applications.
For more information about
the
Division's
Environmental Justice
process and to access
the
reporting
tool, see
the
pages
titled
"New
Environmental Justice
Report
Tool
for Air Quality
Regulation 3" and "Air
Pollution
Control
Division Guidance
for
Incorporating
Environmental
Justice into
Permitting" on the
Division Webpage
(links
are included
on the
OP
-50A
Instruction
Document).
The
environmental
justice summary report,
required
aerial or satellite
image, and supplemental
IX
environmental
justice
summary information
has been
completed,
submitted
to
the
Division's
Environmental
Justice group,
and
a copy
is attached.
Form Revised August 2023
Page I3of5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
111
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Form OP -50
The letter of concurrence from the Division's Environmental Justice group is completed and attached.
If the letter of concurrence is not attached, explain: Biochar Now has not yet received the letter of
concurrence after submitting the EJ Summary to the Division.
This application does not trigger the need for an environmental justice summary report or letter of
concurrence because it is the following application type (check the box below):
Administrative Permit Amendment
APEN exemption/Permit exemption/Insignificant activity
Contact Update (RO, contact person, and/or billing contact update)
Supplement to previously submitted application
Other, explain: Click_: here to enter text.
I
6 Signature of Responsible
Official
WARNING:
statement,
of
A.
B.
C.
a
Statement
I
I
applicable
applicable
applicable
applicable
have
certify
certify
certify
certify
Any
representation,
here
here
reviewed
and
person
of
inquiry,
that
that
that
that
Completeness
complete.
of
requirements,
assurance
requirements,
of
requirements.
requirements,
and
to
to
Facility
the
the
Facility
the
the
this
I
enter
facility
facility
enter
who
may
facility
facility
certify
monitoring.
application
Compliance
Compliance
knowingly,
or
be
described
described
text,
described
described
text
certification
punished
that
including
except
except
the
in
Status
for
Status
for
as
in
its
statements
in
in
in
in
compliance
defined
the
the
in,
accordance
this
this
this
this
entirety
With
With
following
air
air
following
air
air
or
in
omits
Federal
pollution
pollution
State
pollution
pollution
and,
and
§
certification
18-1-501(6),
with
information
emissions
-Only
emissions
material
based
and
the
permit
permit
Enforceable
permit
permit
State
on
requirements
unit(s)
unit(s)
information
provisions
information
contained
application
application
application
application
C.
Enforceable
OS.,
identified
identified
Conditions
makes
f
from
§
and
in
is
is
is
is
25-7
this
and
fully
fully
Conditions
fully
fully
any
this
belief
any
below:
below:
I
application
in
in
in
in
false
application
22.1,
applicable
compliance
compliance
compliance
compliance
formed
material
C.R.S.
after
are
is
true,
with
with
with
with
guilty
x
reasonable
accurate
Certification
I
x
all
compliance
all
Click
Certification
x
all
all
Click
misdemeanor
Responsible
Name
Official
or Others
Jordan
Gaspard
Title
Managing
Director
Signature2
c/
,
Date
t�t
, .
,
-.
. text.
,
1F
or the fol[ow�ng applications, a signature of a Legally Authorized Person (not a vendor or consultant) is acceptable:
Notification of Construction Permit Exempt Unit, Billing contact update, Responsible Official update, and Supplemental
Information submittal. For these application types,PP
PP a Legally Authorized Person must only certify with Section 6.A (6.B
and 6.C certifications are not needed).
Form Revised August 2023
Page 14of5
•
COLORADO
Department of Public
• --'. Health 8 Environment
�M�:��
Air Pollution Control Division
COLORADO Form OP -50
CDPHE
TM Department of Public Health & Environment
2Either a wet or electronic signature is required here.
Form Revised August 2023 Page 15 of 5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
General Facility Information Form
Form OP -100
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
Plant AIRS ID 123 - 9E2C
Number:
1. Instructions
Included on the Colorado Air Pollution Control Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -100A) for this
application form. Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing
information may be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the
application shield of Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. Note that if using copy and paste; the applicant
must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document for more details.
2. Facility
Name
and
Physical
Address
Company
Name
Biochar
Now,
LLC
Facility Name
Berthoud
Plant
Address 1
19500 Weld
County
Road
7
Address 2
Inter facility
address
line 2,
if
applicable.
City
Berthoud
County
Weld
State and
Zip
Code
80513
3. Parent Company
Name
and
Mailing
Address
Name
Biochar
Now,
LLC
Address 1
19500
Weld
County
Road
7
Address 2
Enter Parent Facility
Address line
2, if applicable.
City
Berthoud
State
and
Zip
Code
Colorado, 80513
4.
Billing/Accounts
Payable
for
Title V Operating
Permit Fees
Invoices
immediately
applications.
other
construction
associated
Division
are
issued
with
upon
permit
The
fees
annual
Division
any
quarterly
can
change
processing)
be
pollutant
may
updated
to
send
to
recover
avoid
or
emissions.
invoices
via
by
costs
additional
an
following
via
Air
associated
Pollution
the
email
penalties
instructions
and/or
with
Emission
due
processing
US
to
Notice
on
Mail.
nonpayment.
the
Update
(for
annual
hourly
V
the
emission
Operating
Billing
contact
fees
contact
associated
fee
Permit
information
invoice
information
with
for
fees
for
Title
Contact
Name
Jordan Gaspard
Managing
Director
Title
Email
Jgaspard@biocharnow.com
(970) 593-9100
Telephone
Address
19500 Weld
County
Road
7,
Berthoud,
CO 80513
Form Revised August 2023
Page 11 of
\e3lj
X90/
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health 8 Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Form OP -100
5. Responsible
Official
- See instruction sheet
for information on
Responsible
Official requirements.
Name
Jordan Gaspard
Title
Managing
Director
Email
jgaspard@biocharnow.com
(970) 593-9100
Telephone
Address
19500
Weld CR7,
Berthoud, CO 80513
6.
Permit Contact
Person
Name
Jordan Gaspard
Managing
Director
Title
Email
jgaspard@biocharnow.com
(970) 593-9100
Telephone
Address
19500
Weld
CR7,
Berthoud,
CO 80513
7. Correspondence Options - Select the correspondence option associated with the processing of the Title V
Operating Permit for the facility.
x
x
x
Permit Contact Person Only
Copy Responsible Official (formal letters only)
Copy Responsible Official (include all files, draft permits, etc.)
8. Facility Information
A.
Business
of
facility:
Activity
Biochar
production
facility
B.
SIC
Code:
2861
C. NAICS
Code:
325194
D.
Is
located
nonattainment
area
the
facilit
(NAA)?
in a
y
E.
If
check
designated
nonattainment
pollutant(s)
yes
on
the
D,
CO
x
Ozone
PM1 o
Other
(specify):
Click
here to
If
included
enter
the
defined
27,
yes
northern
Part
for
text
ozone,
in
in
A.?
the
Colorado
.
portion
2015
is
this
of
8 -hour
Regulations
facility
Weld
located
County
O3
NAAQS
7 and
in
as
24-
N
Yes
No
Yes
x
No
F.
Is
of
section
this
accidental
facility
112(r)(7)
subject
release
of
the
to
of
the
hazardous
Clean
provisions
air
Air Act?:
governing
pollutants
contained
prevention
in
Yes IX
No
If
yes,
has
a
RMP
been registered?
Yes
No
G.
Is
subject
Acid
the
Rain
facility
to
the
H.
If
a
new
yes
complete
or
on
G, is
Yes
x
No
Yes
No
Form Revised August 2023
Page 12of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health 8 Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Form OP -100
Provisions of
renewal Acid
Title
IV?
included?
Rain
application
permit
9.
approvals
incorporated
number,
List
of
date,
Permits
and
exemptions
and
and
-
construction
what
List
all
unit/process
(Federal
issued
to
permits
and
this
that
is
State)
facility.
covered
need
air
This
to
by
pollution
section
be incorporated
each
permit.
permits
includes
Attach
(including
construction
into
the
additional
operating
grandfathered
permits
pages
permit.
units),
already
if necessary.
List
the
plan
Permit
Number
Date
Last
Issued
Units/Processes
Covered
by
Permit
15WE1395
Jul 5, 2022
y
Process
diesel
fuel
kilns,
-fired
various unpaved
generator
engines
haul roads, two (2)
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter
Number.
Click here to enter
text.
Click here
to enter
text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter
Number.
Click here to enter
text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter
Number.
Click here to enter
text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter
Number.
Click here to enter
text.
Click here
to enter
text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Enter
Number.
Click here to enter
text.
Click here
to enter
text.
Enter Number.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Form Revised August 2023
Page 13of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health 8 Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Form OP -100
10.
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
and
Non
-Attainment
New
Source
Review (NANSR)
A.
Is
Deterioration
100
II.A.25.a.(1))
this
tons
facility
a
(PSD)
per year?
listed
(See
source
for which
Colorado
for
the
the
source
Regulation
purposes
of
would
3,
be
Part
Prevention
considered
A, Section
of
Significant
major
at
Yes 'XI
No
If
here
yes, describe:
to enter
Click
text.
B.
Is
Prevention
≥ 250
this
facility
•
of
Tons/Year
a major
•�•
Significant
or
100
stationary
Tons/Year
source
•
Deterioration
if
(PSD)
listed
for
the
source)
program?
purposes
p
p
(Potential
of
the
•
to
•
Emit
Yes
x
No
Ifyes,
Click
text.
enter
here
pollutants:
to
enter
C.
Is
Attainment
above
II.A.25.b)
this
.A.25.
facility
thresholds
b)
New
a major
Source
stationary
listed in
Review (NANSR)
Colorado
source
Regulation
for
program?
the
3,
purposes
(Potential
Part
of
D, Section
the
to
Non-
Emit
x
Yes
No
If
NOx
yes, enter
pollutants:
11. Reporting
Facilities are required to submit semiannual Monitoring and Deviation reports and annual Compliance
Certifications (these reports are included as appendices in the operating permit). For the calendar year
reporting period (see below), reports are required by the end of the month following the end of the
semiannual or annual periods respectively; e.g., Monitoring and Deviation reports would be due on July 31 and
January 31, and the Compliance Certification would be due on January 31. The applicant may elect to alter
the reporting date ranges below. Note that the requested reporting periods must be every 6 months for the
Monitoring and Deviation report, and every 12 months for the compliance certification.
Xi *Calendar year periods as follows:
Monitoring and Deviation report: January 1 - June 30, July 1 - December 31
Compliance Certifications: January 1 - December 31
Reporting periods will align with issued permit
i.e. if the operating permit is issued in May, annual compliance period will be May 1 - April 30
*Alternate reporting period (specify): Click here to enter text .
*Note that if the applicant selects one of these options and the permit is issued on any month other than January or July,
there will be shortened reporting periods to "catch up" to the default period. The applicant will be informed of any
shortened periods with the issuance letter.
Form Revised August 2023 Page 14 of 4
\e3lj
X90/
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health 8 Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Source and Site Description
Form OP -101
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
Plant AIRS ID 123 - 9E2C
Number:
1. Instructions
Included on the Colorado Air Pollution Control Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -101A) for this source
and site description form. Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with
missing information may be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the
application shield of Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. Renewal and modification applications for
equipment already included in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected
by the modification. Note that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See
"General Instructions" document for more details.
2. Site Description
Describe the units to be permitted and the activities at the facility. If additional space is needed, attach an
additional description.
The facility accepts clean waste wood (logs, pallets, etc.) that is shredded (insignificant activity) and
processed in sealed kilns to produce biochar by heating the waste wood in a low -oxygen, controlled
temperature ambient to drive off volatile compounds, leaving a carbonaceous "skeleton". Kiln emissions are
controlled by a combustion afterburner. Biochar product is packaged (insignificant activity) for shipment
offsite. Power at the site is provided by diesel fuel generators. Haul roads result in low -levels of fugitive
particulate emissions.
3. Site Information
Site Location Description
(Include instructions needed to
drive to remote sites not
identified by street addresses)
19500 Weld County Road 7
Berthoud, CO 80513
Neighboring state(s) and Tribal
programs within a 50 mile radius
of the facility (check all that
apply)
x
Arizona
Utah
Wyoming
New Mexico
Southern Utes
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Class I and II Federal areas within
a 100 kilometer radius of the
facility (check all that apply)
To find this information, use the
link to the data viewer provided
in the instruction sheet.
Form Revised August 2023
Mount Zirkel Wilderness
Flat Tops Wilderness
West Elk Wilderness
La Garita Wilderness
Mesa Verde National Park
Great Sand Dunes National
Park
Florissant Fossil Beds
National Monument
Dinosaur National Monument
Page I 1 of 2
x
x
Rawah Wilderness
Rocky Mountain National Park
Eagles Nest Wilderness
Maroon Bells Snowmass
Wilderness
Black Canyon of the Gunnison
Wilderness
Weminuche Wilderness
Great Sand Dunes National
Preserve
Colorado National Monument
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health 8 Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -101
Uncompahgre
Mountain
Wilson
Mountain
Required
(check
Safety
all that
Equipment
apply)
Xi
Hard Hat
❑
Hearing Protection
x
Safety
Shoes
Flame Retardant
Clothing
x
Gloves
H2S
Monitor
Other (describe):
Click here
fX
E e Protection
y
❑
to enter text.
Collocation
Information
Is this
facility
collocated with another facility?
Yes
x
No
If yes,
AIRS ID(s):
list
other
Click
facility operating
here
permit
to enter text.
number(s)
(if applicable)
and
4. Required Attachments - The following must be attached in order for the application to be considered
administratively complete:
Facility Plot Plan (plan view) - The Division will not accept blueprint sized drawings
• Include all buildings occupied by or located on the site of the facility and any outdoor process layout
• Identify location of emission units
❑ Process Flow Diagram (PFD) (if applicable)
• Identify emission units
X
Form Revised August 2023 Page 12 of 2
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health & Environment
a
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Plant Wide Criteria Air Pollutants
Form OP -102
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
Instructions
Complete the following emissions summary for criteria air emissions at this facility. Included on the Colorado
Air Pollution Control Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -102A) for this form. Note that if using copy and
paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document for more details.
Classification
Is this facility considered to be a single source with another facility? Yes x No
If yes, list other facility operating permit number(s) and plant AIRS ID(s): Click to enter text .
If the facility associated with this Operating Permit application is considered a single source with another
facility, fill out the following table for emissions associated with this Operating Permit application only; do
not include any emissions from other facilities.
Air Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Potential to Emit (tpy)
Controlled
Potential to Emit (tpy)
Particulates (PM/TSP)
5.8
5.5
PMio
3.2
3.0
PM2.5
1.7
1.6
Sulfur Dioxide (502)
0.9
0.9
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
33.2
33.2
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)
59.5
4.0
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
4.2
4.2
Ozone (03)
PTE
PTE
Lead
PTE
PTE
Fluorides
PTE
PTE
Total
Reduced Sulfur
PTE
PTE
Reduced
Sulfur Compounds
PTE
PTE
Hydrogen
Sulfide
(H2S)
PTE
PTE
Sulfur Acid Mist
PTE
PTE
Municipal Waste Combustor
Organics
PTE
PTE
Municipal Waste Combustor
Metals
PTE
PTE
Municipal Waste Combustor
Acid Gases
PTE
PTE
Form Revised August 2023
Page I1of1
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Plant Wide Hazardous Air Pollutants
Form OP -103
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
Instructions
Complete the following emissions summary for all hazardous air emissions at this facility. Included on the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -103A) for this form. Note that if using
copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document for more
details.
Classification
(1) Is the facility considered a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (Over 10 tons per year of a
single HAP or 25 tons per year of combined HAPs)? Yes x No
(2) Is the facility considered a single source with a facility that is a major source of HAP or where combined
emissions make the facility a major source of HAPs? Yes x No
If yes, list other facility permit number(s) and plant AIRS ID(s): Click here to enter text
If the facility associated with this Operating Permit application is considered a single source with another
facility, fill out the following table for emissions associated with this Operating Permit application only; do
not include any emissions from other facilities.
Hazardous
Name
Air
Pollutant
CAS
Number
Uncontrolled
to Emit
(Enter
Potential
Units)
Controlled
Emit (Enter
Potential
Units)
to
Benzene
71-43-2
1.87E-03
1.87E-03
108-88-3
8.20E-04
8.20E-04
Toluene
Xylene
1330-20-7
5.71E-04
5.71E-04
Methanol
67-56-1
23.52
1.18
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
2.37E-03
2.37E-03
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
HAP Name
CAS Number
PTE
PTE
Form Revised August 2023
Page I1of1
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Insignificant Activities
Form OP -105
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
Plant AIRS ID
Number:
123-9E2C
1. Instructions
Included on the Colorado Air Pollution Control Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -105A) for this
insignificant activities form. Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions.
Review the exemptions listed and determine if any of the insignificant activities described operate at the
facility. In the "additional information" column, using the checkboxes, indicate "Yes" or "No" if this
insignificant activity operates at the facility. If "Yes", complete any additional questions that and/or fill out
any associated tables. If more space is needed in the table(s), attach additional information.
Note that the Operating Permit exemptions listed below do not apply if the emission unit is subject to any
specific federal or state applicable requirements such as a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) ,
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (e.g. MACT), and/or Colorado Regulation No. 7, No.
24, No. 25, and No. 26, etc. Units subject to specific federal or state applicable requirements must submit the
proper application forms and have the applicable requirements reflected in the Operating Permit. See
Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.E for more details.
Potential to Emit (PTE) for insignificant activities is typically estimated using the maximum design/emission
rate of the emission unit operating at 8760 hours per year, or 500 hours/year for emergency engines. Note
that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document
for more details.
2. Exemptions
2.A. Starred Insignificant Activities
Sources
activities
an
the
sufficient
insignificant
are
production
required
are marked
record
activity
rate
of
keeping
to
with
the
include
source
an
activity.
verifying
a list
asterisk
category
that
of
in
insignificant
owner
the
Colorado
based
exemption
on
or
the
operator
activities
Regulation
size
applies.
of
of
No.
the
these
in
activity,
their
3,
individual
Part
permit applications
C, Section
emissions
emission
II.E.
levels
points
if
from
the
asterisk
must
the
insignificant
denotes
activity
maintain
or
The
The
Insignificant
g
Activity
Regulatory
Citation
Additional
Information
*Units
APEN
with
de
emissions less
minimis - criteria
pollutants.
p
than
Re
3,
II.E.3.a
g
Section
Part
ulation
C,
Yes
No
Ix_l
Name
of
Unit
PTE
(indicate
pollutant
only)
highest
Location
Shredding/Kiln
Wood
Loading
PM: 0.20
ton/yr
Location
Biochar
Et
Packaging
Sizing
PM: 0.08
ton/yr
y
Location
Unit
PT
Location
Unit
PTE
Location
Unit
PTE
Location
Unit
PTE
Location
Form Revised August 2023
Page 11 of 7
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -105
Unit
PTE
Location
`Research laboratories.
Re
Regulation
3,
Section
II.E.3.i
g
Part
. E. 3.i
C,
Yes
No
x
*If yes, is it of a small pilot
ten thousand pounds
scale
of test
Yes
and
material
No
that process less than
per year?
*If
actual
yes, is it less than six
emissions less than
pollutant or ten pounds
months
pollutant?
five
of
Yes
hundred
any
in
duration
non -criteria
No
with controlled
pounds of any criteria
reportable
*Disturbance
development,
exceed
acres
for
and
six
of
purposes
twenty-five
that do
months in
surface areas
of land
that do not
contiguous
not exceed
duration.
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
II.E.3.j
Yes
No
x
Describe:
Click here to enter text.
*Each
burning
smokehouse
internal
that
than
British
that
individualpiece
equipment,
combustion
uses gaseous
has a
or equal
thermal
generators
design
to
five
units
of fuel
other
and
engines,
fuel, and
rate less
million
per hour.
than
Regulation
3,
Part
Section
II.E.3.k
C,
Yes
No
x
Name
of Unit
Design Rate
(MMBtu/hr)
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
*Petroleum
associated
combusting
containing
exce
approved
having
of any
five
p tin
uncontrolled
pollutant
tons
industry
no
by
with
natural
hydrogen
trace
the
per
of
flares,
refineries,
gas
sulfide
amounts,
COGCC
emissions
less
year.
not
and
than
Regulation
g
3, Part
Section
II.E.3.m
C,
Yes
No
x
Describe:
Click here to enter text.
*Chemical
containers
five
throughput
five
not
wastewater
production
hundred
have an
gallons
associated
and gas
facilities
processing.
that
storage
annual
less
per
that
hold
gallons,
than
with
production
or
wastewater
tanks
less
average
day,
either
commercial
accept
or
than
that
twenty-
and are
oil
oil
for
Regulation
3,
II.E.3.n
Part C,
Section
Yes
No
X
Chemical
Storage
Capacity (gal)
Location
Tanks
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Form Revised August 2023
Page 12of 7
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health & Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -105
*Landscaping
housekeeping
or less than
size (lawnmowers,
snow
devices
ten
blowers,
and site
equal to
horsepower in
p
trimmers,
etc.).
Regulation
g
3, Part
Section
II.E.3.bb
C,
Yes
No
❑
x
10,000
6750
equipment
loading
sites
year
production
day
exploration
*Crude
basis.
gallons
averaged
loading
that
barrels
or that
than
condensate
oil loading
at
sites
rate does
Condensate
equipment
and
splash
of
submerge
16308
exploration
of
on
condensate
where
not
crude
an
production
fill less
barrels
per year.
truck
the
exceed
oil
annual
truck
at
than
fill
of
and
less
per
per
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
II. E.3.ee
Yes
No
❑
x
Describe:
Click here to enter text.
`Chemical
chemicals
exceed
containers,
storage
are
storage capacity
g P
five thousand
stored
and
areas
where
y does
in closed
gallons.
where
total
not
Regulation
g
3, Part
Section
II. E.3.mm
C,
Yes
No
❑
x
Chemical Storage
Areas
Capacity (gal)
p y
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
Unit
Capacity
Location
*Venting
natural
gas cylinders,
of
gas,
one gallon
of
butane
compressed
with
or
or
a capacity
less.
propane
Regulation
3, Part
Section
II.E.3.bbb
C,
Yes
No
x
Describe:
Click here
to enter
text.
`Fuel
attainment
solely
vehicles
throughput
four
averaged
attainment/maintenance
recovery
than
gallons
by
Regulation
order
must
Regulation
equipment
hundred
storage
five
to
for
utilize
where
annually.
an
on
capacity,
take
areas
company
is
gallons
ozone
all
hundred
Number
this
and
Stage
Number
in
the
no more
tanks
as
exemption.
dispensing
ozone
operated
-owned
daily
Sources
1
and
required
per
vapor
greater
7
24],
fuel
than
day,
in
area
fifty
[Now
in
Regulation
g
3, Part
Section
II.E.3.ccc
C,
Yes
No
x
Equipment
Daily
Throughput
(gal/day)
Fuel
Fuel
Location
T e
yp
Unit
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Throughput
Type
Location
Is
the equipment
subject
Yes
to
No
NESHAP
CCCCCC?
Form Revised August 2023
Page 13of7
#1:4;6".,"%45,4
Hse .
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -105
`Storage
(1)
than
(2)
(i)
(iii)
(iv)
a
equal
(Reid
vapor
the
Annual
four
(ii)
As
through
oil/water
to
vapor
following
gallons;
liquid
the
Fuel
turbine
pressure
tanks
fuels
that
hundred
throughput
following:
psi
stored
6;
oils
pressure
meeting
criteria:
and
1-D,
#1
fuels
4 -
mixture
less
of
diesel
thousand
2-D,
-
is
#6;
1
all of
is less
one of
or 4-
- GT
with
or
fuel
.025
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
II.E.3.fff
. E. 3. fff
No
II
Yes
Ix
Capacity
(gal)
Throughput
(gal/yr)
yp
Type
of
Liquid
Stored
Location
Tank
The
Diesel
An
Unit
Capacity
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Throughput
Type
Location
GT;
than
of
Unit
Capacity
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Throughput
Type
Location
Unit Unit
Capacity
Throughput
Type
Location
Surface
mine seventy
fewer of
year. A
plan
sources.
other
activities
mining activities that
thousand tons
product material
fugitive dust control
is required for such
q
Crushers, screens
processing equipment
are not included
this exemption.
or
per
and
in
Regulation
g
3, Part
Section
II.E.3. qqq
C,
No
I
Yes
x
Describe:
Click here to enter text.
Chemical stora a tanks.
g
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
I. E.3.eeee
Does your facility have
exceed ten thousand
sulfuric
five
hundred
acid
No
storage
gallons
tanks not to
capacity?
Yes
x
Does your facility have
sodium
hydroxide
No
storage tanks?
Yes
(x
Tanks
Capacity
(gallons)
Liquid
of
Stored
Location
Type
Unit
Capacity
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Type
Location
Unit
Capacity
Type
Location
*Any
with
condensate
are
production
owned
same
barrels
condensate
a
manifold
per year
person,
production
and
per year
storage
rate
or
operated
storage
together
g
of
less
and
rate
or
730
that
are
tanks
less
located
tank
of
or
that
with
barrels
are
by the
730
a
Regulation
3, Part C'
Section
II.E.3. gggg
Ix
No
D
Yes
Tanks
Throughput (bbl/yr)
Location
Unit
Throughput
Location
Unit
Throughput
Location
Unit
Throughput
Location
Unit
Throughput
Location
Unit
Throughput
Location
Form Revised August 2023
Page 14of 7
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health & Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
at exploration and production
sites.
Form OP -105
Unit
Throughput
Location
Are any of these tanks subject to NSPS K, Ka, or Kb?
❑ Yes ❑ No
LB. Co
mmon
Insignificant Activities
The Division strongly suggests reporting the following common insignificant activities. However, it is not
required to complete this section. Using the checkboxes, indicate "Yes" if this insignificant activity operates
at the facility. If "Yes", complete any additional questions that and/or fill out any associated tables.
Units with emissions less than
APEN de minimis - non -criteria
pollutants.
Regulation
3, Part
Section
II.E.3.b
C,
Yes
Name of Unit
PTE (indicate
pollutant
only)
highest
Location
Unit
Example- HF: 100
lbs/yr
Location
Unit
Example- Acrolein:
p
lbs/yr
50
Location
Unit
PTE
Location
Unit
PTE
Location
Unit
PTE
Location
Fire laces
P
recreational
or outside.
used
purposes,
for
inside
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
II.E.3.d
E.3.d
Yes
❑
Emissions
construction,
residential
including all
structures used
place of residence,
including
devices.
or
buildings
home
from, or
alteration of
structures,
or other
primarily as a
and
heating
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
II.E.3.h
Yes
❑
Internal
powering
P
combustion
gportable
engines
drilling rigs.
Regulation
3,
Section
II.E.3.1
Part
C,
Yes
❑
Open
P
burning activities.
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
I I. E.3.q
Yes
❑
Aerosol can usage.
g
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
II.E.3.0
Yes
❑
Form Revised August 2023 Page 15 of 7
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -105
Storage
provided
Regulation
IV
of
liquefied
vessel with
than sixty
Now
No. 24, Part
met,
the
Colorado
where
butane,
petroleum
thousand
Number
a capacity
requirements
B,
propane,
gas
gallons,
q rements
7, Section
Regulation
Section
applicable.
or
in a
of less
of
II] are
Regulation
3,
II
g
Part
Section
. E.3.zz
C,
Yes
❑
Storage
than
lubricating
tanks
forty
lubricating
of capacity less
thousand gallons of
oils or waste
oils.
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
II.E.3.aaa
Yes
design
to
buildings
Each individual
burning
gaseous
rate
ten
units
used
equipment
fuel,
million
per
solely
for
and
less
British
hour,
for
personal
piece
that
than
and
heating
of fuel
that uses
has a
or equal
thermal
that is
comfort.
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
I I . E. 3. ggg
Yes
❑
Describe:
Click here to enter text.
Stationary
internal combustion
engines.
Regulation
3, Part C,
Section
II.E.3.nnn
Do you have power
portable
Yes
drilling rigs?
❑
Do you have emergency
more than two
power
hundred
Yes
generators
fifty hours
that
per
operate
year?
no
Do you have engines that have
less than five tons per year
horsepower
of
uncontrolled actual emissions
or manufacturer's site -rated
less than fifty?
Yes
Name
of Unit
PTE (indicate
pollutant
only)
highest
Horsepower
Unit
Example- NOx:
100 lbs/yr
Horsepower
Unit
Example -
Acrolein: 50
lbs/yr
Horsepower
Unit
PTE
Horsepower
Unit
PTE
Horsepower
Are any of these
engines
or
subject
NSPS
Yes
JJJJ?
to
No
NESHAP
ZZZZ,
NSPS
IIII,
❑
Gasoline stations located in
ozone attainment areas.
Regulation
3, Part
Section
II.E.3.ppp
C,
Yes
❑
Form Revised August 2023
Page 16of 7
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -105
impoundment
evaporation
exce
accept
produced
commercial
wastewater
Surface
water
p tions
oil
wastewater
and
oil
and
of
gas
water
and
water
storm
ponds,
im
for
of
facilities
production
gas
p
(including
non
oundment
tanks)
processing.
storage
production
water
-potable
with
that
the
and
of
Regulation
3,
Section
.
II.E.3.yyy
Part
E.3.yyy
C,
Yes
Source
Wet
applicability
included
Federal
notwithstanding
Part
screening
Performance
Regulations,
60,
in
Subpart
the
of
operations
the
Code
the
Standards
New
of
40,
Regulation
3,
Section
II .
g
Part
E.3.ffff
C,
Yes
Are these
screening operations
Yes
No
subject
to NSPS
OOO?
Title
OOO.
2.C. Other Insignificant Activities
Use the space below to report any other noteworthy insignificant activities that the facility would like listed
in the permit. Include the name of the exemption, regulation citation (from Regulation 3, Part C, Section
II.E), name of unit, and any other information the facility would like to add. Attach additional pages as
needed to report other insignificant activities.
Click
here to
Click
here to enter
Click
here to
enter
citation.
Reg
Click
here to
additional
information.
enter
enter
unit
3
exemption
name.
name.
Form Revised August 2023 Page 17 of 7
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Et Environment
Source -Specific Forms
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants A-3
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Kiln Operation
Form OP -312
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
AIRS ID Number: 123 - 9E2C - 001
1. Instructions
Included on the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -312A) for this
kiln form. Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing
information may be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the
application shield of Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. B. Renewal and modification applications for
equipment already included in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected
by the modification. Note that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See
"General Instructions" document for more details.
2.
Kiln
Information
Facility
(example:
Identifier
S001)
N/A
Kiln
Information
Manufacturer
Model
Serial
Number
Shop
Built
N/A
N/A
Dates
Date
Date
Date
commenced
commenced
last modified/reconstructed:
construction:
operation:
2015
March
8,
Click
2016
here to enter text.
Construction
Underlying
Permit
IX]
Yes
No
Permit
Number:
15WE1395,
Issuance 6
Exemptions
information):
List
any
state
exemptions
Click
that
here
to
apply
enter
to
this
unit
text.
(See
Instruction
Sheet
for more
3.
Kiln Characteristics
General
Description
equipment
of
Kilns
used
to
process clean wood to
produce
biochar
product
0.125
(each
kiln)
Maximum
Burner
(MMBtu
Rating
/
hr)
(Check
Design
all
Information
that
apply)
Tunnel (Continuous)
Kiln
x
Periodic
(Batch)
Kiln
Pulse -Fired
Combustion
System
Standard Combustion
System
Flue Gas
Recirculation
Reduced
Air
Preheating
Low-NOx
Burners
Other
(describe):
Click
here to enter text.
Firing
Information
Temperature
Approximate
total
Range:
< 500
time
for
F (kiln
cycle:
interior);
12
hr/kiln
afterburner:
1000
- 1500
F.
4.
Primary
Fuel
Information
Type
of
(See
Secondary
Primary
Below
Fuels)
Fuel
for
0
Other
(specify):
Propane
❑
Coal
❑
Natural
Gas
❑
Fuel
Oil
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 001
Page 11 of 5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -312
Fuel Information
Fuel Heat
(Btu/lb
Heat
Content
coal):
Content.
Fuel Heat Content
Btu/scf : 2300
( )
Fuel
(Btu/gal):
Content.
Heat Content
Heat
Click
enter
additional
information
that
helpful
permitting
process.
here
may
to
be
in the
% Ash
Ash
Sulfur
Sulfur
Content.
content:
Content.
content:
% Sulfur content:
Sulfur Content.
% Sulfur content:
Sulfur
Content.
Grade of Fuel Oil:
Grade of Oil.
Type of Natural
Gas:
Type of Coal:
❑
Anthracite
Pipeline
Quality
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Field Quality
Lignite
Other
Permit Throughput
Limitation
16,800 MMBtu/yr
5. Secondary
Fuel
Information
XI
Check
this
box if
the kiln does not have a secondary fuel and
leave
this section
blank.
Type of Secondary
Fuel
❑
Other
(specify): Enter
fuel.
❑
Coal
❑
Natural
Gas
❑
Fuel Oil
Fuel
Information
Fuel Heat
(Btu/lb
Btu/lb
Heat
Content
coal):
Content.
Fuel Heat Content
(Btu/scf): Heat
)
Content.
Fuel Heat
Content
(Btu/gal): Heat
Content.
Click
enter
additional
information
that
helpful
permitting
process.
here to
may be
in the
%Ash
Ash
Sulfur
Sulfur
Content.
content:
Content.
content:
Sulfur content:
Sulfur Content.
% Sulfur content:
Sulfur
Content.
Grade of Fuel
Oil: Grade of
Oil.
T e of Coal:
Type
Type of Natural
Gas:
❑
Anthracite
Pipeline Quality
Bituminous
Field Quality
Subbituminous
Other
Lignite
Click here to enter throughput
and specify units.
Permit
Throughput
Limitation
Additional
Information
Indicate
to
when
enter
secondary
text.
fuels are used (i.e. startup,
backup, etc.): Click here
6.
Processing Information
Permit
and/or Hours
(specify
Throughput
Limitation
units)
Raw Material
Finished
Hours Limitation
(if applicable):
Products
(if
(if
applicable):
applicable):
11,200 ton/yr clean
- 2500 tons
Click here
biochar/yr
to
wood
enter
hours .
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123-9E2C-001
Page I2of5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -312
Design
(specify
Process Rate
units)
1
ton clean wook/kiln
Additional
Information
Process
32 kilns operating per day
7. State and
Federal Regulations
Rule
Applicability
How
will
you comply
with
this Regulation?
40
Subpart
CFR Part
JJJJJ
63
Click here to enter text.
Subject
x
Not
Subject
40
Subpart
CFR Part 63
RRRRRR
❑
Subject
Click
here to enter text.
x
Not
Subject
40
CFR
Subpart
Part 63
LLL
Click here to enter text.
❑
Subject
x
Not
Subject
40 CFR
Subpart
Part 60
F
❑
Subject
Click
here to enter text.
x
Not
Subject
Colorado
No.
Regulation
26 Part B Section
II.A
Subject
Click
here to enter text.
x
Not
Subject
Reasonably Available
Control Technology
See Permit 15WE1395,
Issuance 6, Condition 9
X
Subject
For Point 001, application
of afterburners
to
be RACT for this
Not
Subject
source.
Note
equipment
that
the applicant
in a nonattainment
may be asked
or attainment/maintenance
to provide a RACT analysis if new or modified
area.
(RACT)
Compliance
Monitoring
Assurance
(CAM)
If subject,
addressed
attach Form OP -203 CAM unless CAM has already
in the permit or a CAM plan is not due yet.
been
Subject
X
Not
Subject
Colorado
No.
Requirements
Regulation
1 Opacity
p y
These requirements are identified in Form OP -400.
q
x
Subject
Not
Subject
Other (specify)
Click here
to enter text.
Colorado
1
Regulation
PM Requirements
No.
Colorado Regulation
1 SO2 Requirements
No.
❑
Subject
Subject
Not
Subject
Not
Subject
Colorado Regulation No.
6 PM Requirements
Colorado Regulation No.
6 SO2 Requirements
❑
Subject
Subject
❑
Not
Subject
Not
Subject
8. Control Device Information
Is any emission control equipment or practice used to reduce emissions?
If yes, describe control device(s) below:
x
Yes
No
Control Device
Description
Afterburner stacks
Pollutant
PM
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
NOx
VOC
CO
Lead
Enter
Other
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123-9E2C-001
Page 13of 5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -312
Control Efficiency I Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
95%
Text
Text
Text
Controlled
Enter
Enter
Enter
Enter
Enter
Enter
Enter
Enter
Individual
HAP:
Methanol
HAP
HAP
HAP
HAP
HAP
HAP
HAP
HAP
Control EfficiencyI
95%
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
9. Primary Fuel
Criteria Pollutant Emission Information
Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Emission
Factors
Controlled
Emission
Factors
Emission
Factors Units
Emission
Source
(e. .
g
manufacturer,
source
Factor
AP
test,
-42,
etc.
Uncontrolled
Potential
Emit (tpy)
-to-
Permitted
Limitation
(tpy)
PM
0.27
EF
lb
/ton
Stack
1.49
1.49
Testing
PM10
0.18
EF
lb/ton
Stack
1.02
1.02
Testing
PM2.5
0.13
EF
lb/ton
Stack
0.71
0.71
Testing
SO2
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
NOx
0.30
EF
lb/hr
Stack
Testing
20.16
20.16
VOC
10.44
0.522
lb/ton
Stack
58.46
2.92
Testing
CO
0.02
EF
lb/hr
Stack
1.34
1.34
Testing
Lead
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter
Pollutant
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
10. Primary Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Emission Information
Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Emission
Factors
Controlled
Emission
Factors
Emission
Factors
Units
Emission Factor
Source
(e.g. AP -42,
manufacturer,
source test, etc.
Uncontrolled
Potential -to-
Emit (tpy)
Permitted
Limitation
(tpy)
Methanol
4.20
0.21
lb/ton
Stack
23.52
1.18
Testing
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
11. Secondary
Fuel
Criteria Pollutant
Emission Information
Check
this
box if the unit does not
have a secondary
fuel
and leave this section
blank.
xi
Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Emission
Factors
Controlled
Emission
Factors
Emission
Factors
Units
Emission Factor
Source
(e.g. AP -42,
manufacturer,
Uncontrolled
Potential -to-
Emit (tpy)
Permitted
Limitation
(tpy)
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123-9E2C-001
Page 14of 5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -312
source test, etc.
PM
_L'
Li
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
PM10
-
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
PM2.5
EL{'
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
SO2
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
NOx
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
VOC
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
CO
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Lead
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter
Pollutant
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
12. Secondary
Fuel
Hazardous Air Pollutant
(HAP)
Emission Information
Check this
box if the unit does not have a secondary fuel
and
leave this section
blank.
>1
Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Emission
Factors
Controlled
Emission
Factors
Emission
Factors
Units
Emission
Source
(e.g. AP
manufacturer,
source test,
Factor
-42,
etc.
Uncontrolled
Potential
-to-
Emit (tpy)
Permitted
Limitation
(tpy)
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
13. Compliance and Monitoring
I have filled out and attached Form OP -400 Compliance and Monitoring with all known applicable
requirements for this emission unit: xl Yes 0 No
14. Required Attachments
The following must be attached in order for the application to be considered administratively complete
(unless previously submitted):
Emission Calculations
Manufacturer Specifications or Contract Guarantee for Control Equipment (if applicable)
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 001
ge 15of5
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Compliance and Monitoring
Form OP -400
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
AIRS ID Number: 001 - 9E2C - 001
1. Instructions
Complete this form and attach it to the completed corresponding OP -300 series form for the applicable
emission unit. Each OP -300 series form must be accompanied by a Compliance and Monitoring form (OP -400).
Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing information may
be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the application shield of
Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. . B. Renewal and modification applications for equipment already included
in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected by the modification. Note
that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document
for more details.
2.
Emission Unit
Information
Facility
(example:
Identifier
5001)
Kilns
3. Applicable
Requirements
Identify
recordkeeping,
attach
each
additional
applicable
and
descriptions.
reporting
requirement
requirements,
for
the
emission
and
the
unit,
basis
any
for
the
associated
requirement.
compliance
If
monitoring,
more space
is needed,
Emission
Limitations (tpy,
lb/hr,
lb/MMBtu,
gr/dscf,
etc.)
TSP:
PM
PM
NOx:
VOC:
CO:
-10:
-2.5:
1.5
1.3
1.0
20.2
2.9
0.7
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
Opacity
Visible
periods
exceed
using
In
a.
shall,
control
maintenance
include,
procedures,
addition,
At
EPA
all
to
emissions
of
30%
times,
practices
startup,
Method
the
but
opacity
the
is
and
extent
procedures
including
not
following
inspection
must
9.
for
limited
process
for
(Reference:
practicable,
minimizing
not
more
exceed
modification,
requirements
periods
are
to,
of
than
being
monitoring
the
be
emissions.
Regulation
of
twenty
six
source.
minutes
start-up,
maintained
used
of
will
or
results,
percent
Regulation
(Reference:
adjustment
Determination
Number
be
in
shutdown,
and
based
any
(20%)
opacity
operated
sixty
1,
Number
on
Regulation
opacity
of
Section
and
information
observations,
consecutive
of
control
6,
malfunction,
in
whether
II.A.1.
during
.A.1.
a
Part
manner
Number
equipment
A,
or
available
normal
minutes.
6t 4.)
Subpart
not
review
the
consistent
6,
acceptable
Part
visible
facility,
operation
to
of
Opacity
A,
operating
the
A.
General
emissions
with
General
and
Division,
must
operating
of
good
the
control
and
be
Provisions,
Provisions
source.
must
air
which
determined
maintenance
equipment
pollution
and
not
may
apply
During
from
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 001
Page I1of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
TM
40 CFR 60.11
b. No article, machine, equipment, or process shall be used to conceal an emission that would otherwise
constitute a violation of an applicable standard. Such concealment includes, but is not limited to, the use of
gaseous diluents to achieve compliance with an opacity standard or with a standard that is based on the
concentration of a pollutant in the gases discharged to the atmosphere. (S 60.12)
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
Operational Limitation(s) (hrs/yr, MMscf/yr, lb/yr, etc.)
Clean wood processing rate: 20,075 tons/year
Natural gas/propane consumption: 23.62 MMscf/year (Based on a fuel's heat value of 1,020 Btu/scf)
Other Requirements
List all other applicable requirements for this emission point.
RACT
Regulation Number 2
Regulation Number 3, Part B, II.A.4
Regulation Number 3, Part B,
Regulation Number 3, Part B, IV. E.
Regulation Number 3, Part B, III.A.4
Regulation Number 3, Part B, III.G.7.
Regulation Number 3, Part D, V.A.7. B
The owner or operator must demonstrate continued compliance with the annual Kiln emission limits listed in
condition 2 by completing a source compliance test every two years. The test must be conducted no earlier
than 21 months after the last compliance test and must be completed prior to 27 months after the last
compliance test. (The last compliance test was conducted in September 2017)
This test must be conducted on a total of 3 kiln/afterburner units to measure the emission rate(s) over the
entire process duration for the pollutants listed below in order to demonstrate compliance with the annual
emission limits listed in Condition 2. The average of the emissions rates for the 3 tests must be used to show
compliance with the emission requirements.
The test protocol must be in accordance with the requirements of the Air Pollution Control Division
Compliance Test Manual and must be submitted to the Division for review and approval at least thirty (30)
days prior to testing. No compliance test shall be conducted without prior approval from the Division. Any
compliance test conducted to show compliance with a monthly or annual emission limitation must have the
results projected up to the monthly or annual averaging time by multiplying the test results by the allowable
number of operating hours for that averaging time (Reference: Regulation Number 3, Part B. III.G.3):
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 001
Page 12of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5, filterable and condensable) using EPA approved methods.
4. Monitoring
Requirements
Complete
the
following monitoring questions
about
the
emission unit.
Continuous
Emission
Monitoring
Requirements?
Yes
x
No
Pollutant(s)
Requirement(s):
or
Parameter(s):
Click
Click
here
to
here to enter text.
enter text.
Continuous
Emission Monitoring
System
(CEMS)
Predictive
Emission Monitoring
System
(PEMS)
Continuous
Emission
Rate
Monitoring System
(CERMS)
Other
(describe):
Click
here
to enter text.
Periodic
Compliance
Testing?
lXJ
Yes
No
Pollutant(s):
Frequency:
Date
of
last
Every
Division
PM:
PM10,
21
-approved
-
27
PM2.5
months
test:
from
November
previous
11,
test.
2021
Other?
Yes
x
No
Describe:
Frequency:
Click
Click
here to enter text.
here to enter text.
5. Compliance Status and Commitment
Indicate the compliance status of the emission point as of the date of submittal:
x
In compliance with all applicable requirements
Not in compliance (fill out Section 6 below if schedule of compliance is required)
For applicable requirements this emission point is currently in compliance with:
x_l The emission point will continue to comply with these requirements
For applicable requirements that will become effective during this permit term:
The emission point will comply with these requirements in a timely basis
x
6. Schedule of Compliance
Complete this section if "Not in compliance" was answered in Section 5 and a schedule of compliance is
required. Also, complete this section if the applicant is required to submit a schedule of compliance by an
applicable requirement. Attach copies of any judicial consent decrees, compliance orders on consent, or
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 001
Page 13of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
administrative
orders, etc. for this requirement.
Applicable
(Description
Requirement
and Citation)
Click here to enter text.
Reason for Noncompliance
Click here to enter text.
Narrative
Description
Compliance Will
Achieved
be
How
Click here to enter
text.
Provide
a schedule
of
corrective
leading
action(s), including an enforceable
to compliance, including a date for
sequence of actions
final compliance.
with milestones,
Corrective Action
Date to
be Achieved
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click
here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click
here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
First Progress Report
Frequency of Submittals
will be Submitted
Thereafter:
on: Click here to enter text .
Click here to enter text .
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 001
14 of 4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
a
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Fugitive Particulate Matter Sources
Form OP -310
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
AIRS ID Number: 123 - 9E2C - 006
1. Instructions
Included on the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Website is an instruction sheet (OP -310A) for this form.
Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing information may
be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the application shield of
Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section I i. B. Renewal and modification applications for equipment already included
in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected by the modification. Note
that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document
for more details.
2. Information
Facility Identifier
(example:
S001)
Unpaved Haul Roads
Dates
Commenced
Commenced
construction: Click here to enter text.
operation: Click here to enter text.
Underlying
Construction
Permit
Yes
15WE1395
XI
❑
No
Permit
Number:
Description
General Description of Fugitive
Dust Sources: Unpaved
Haul Roads
3. State
and
Federal
Regulations
40
Subpart
CFR
Part
OOO
60
Subject
Click here to enter
text.
x
Not
Subject
40 CFR
Subpart
Part 60
p Y
Subject
Click here to enter text.
[X
Not
Subject
Colorado
No.
Regulation
1 Section III.D
❑
Subject
Click here to enter text.
x
Not
Subject
If
applicable
subject,
attach most current approved
Fugitive Particulate Emission Control Plan if
Colorado
No.
Requirements
1
Regulation
Opacity
P y
These requirements are identified in
q
Form OP
-400.
x
Subject
Not
Subject
Other
(specify)
Click here to enter text.
4. Criteria Pollutant
Emission Information
Pollutant
Potential -to -Emit (tpy)
Permitted Limitation (tpy)
PM
3.1
3.1
PM10
3.1
3.1
PM2.5
PTE
Limit
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 006
Page I lof4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -310
5.
Topsoil
Xl
Check this
box if
removal/stockpile
of topsoil does not occur at
this facility
and proceed
to Section
6
Removal
Stockpile(s)
Topsoil
Removed
Daily: Tons
Maximum
Stored
Tons Stored
Annual: Tons
Controls
Controls
❑
Watering
Moist Material
Chemical Stabilizer
❑
Enclosure
Complete
Water Spray
(select
one)
Partial
Revegetation
Other: Specify
Other: Specify
6. Overburden
xl
Check this
box if removal/stockpile
of overburden
does not occur at this facility
and
proceed to Section 7
Removal
Stockpile(s)
Equipment
Used for Removal:
Equipment
Maximum
Stored
Tons Stored
Tons
Daily: Tons
Dragline
Removed
Annual: Tons
Controls
❑
Watering
Drop
Height: Feet
Chemical Stabilizer
Scraper Hours
Daily: Hours
Enclosure
❑
Complete
Operated
Annually: Hours
(select
one)
Partial
Moist Material
Revegetation
Controls
Water Spray
Other:
Specify
Other: Specify
7.
Drilling
a
Blasting
xl
Check this box if drilling/blasting does not occur at this
facility and proceed
to Section 8. Otherwise, select
all activities that occur
below.
❑
Drilling
❑
Blasting
Number
Holes
of
Drilled
Daily: Number of Holes
Number
of Blasts
Daily:
Number
of Blasts
Annual: Number of Holes
Annual: Number of Blasts
Controls
Blast Area (acres)
Acres
Water Injection
Blasting Material
Type of Blasting Material
Bag Collectors
Blasting
Used
Material
Daily: Specify Units
Other: Specify
Annually: Specify Units
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 006
Page 12of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £r Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -310
8. Raw
Material
xl
Check this
box if
removal and/or stockpile of
raw material does
not occur at this
facility and
proceed to
Section 9.
Removal
Stockpile(s)
Material Removed
Daily: Tons
Maximum
Stored:
Tons: Tons Stored
Annual: Tons
Size (acres): Acres
Max Drop
Height
Feet
Controls
❑
Watering
Specific
Content
Moisture
o
Percent ( )
Chemical Stabilizer
❑
Compacting of Piles
Controls
❑
Moist Material
❑
Enclosure
Complete
Water Spray
(select
one)
Partial
Revegetation
❑
Other: Specify
❑
Other:
Specify
9. Conveyors a Transfer Points
xi
Check this box if conveying and/or transfer of material does not occur at this facility and proceed to
Section 10.
Conveying
Material
Conveyed
Daily: Tons
Annual: Tons
Controls
Enclosure
one)
Complete
❑
(select
Partial
Other: Specify
Transfer Points
Number
of
Number of Transfer Points
Transfer
Points
Controls
❑
Watering
Chemical Stabilizer
Enclosure
Complete
(select one)
❑
Partial
Other: Specify
10. Material Transport
xl
Check this
box if material transport does not occur at this facility
and
proceed to Section 12.
Vehicle 1
Vehicle 2
Vehicle 3
Vehicle 4
Material Transport: Tons /year
Road
(select
Type
one)
Traveled on
Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved
Unpaved
Unpaved
Unpaved
Unpaved
Haut Vehicle
Capacity
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Haul Vehicle
Empty
Weight
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Trips/Day
Trips/Day
Trips/Day
Trips/Day
Max Number
of Trips
Per day
Road
Length
(avg. one way)
Miles
Miles
Miles
Miles
Speed Limit on Road
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
Additional Material
Transport if needed
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 006
Page 1 3of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £r Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -310
Vehicle 5
Vehicle 6
Vehicle 7
Vehicle
8
❑
Paved
Paved
Paved
Paved
Road
T e Traveled on
yp
❑
Unpaved
Unpaved
❑
Unpaved
Unpaved
Haul
Vehicle
Capacity
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Haul Vehicle Empty Weight
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Trips/Day
Trips/Day
Trips/Day
Trips/Day
Max Number
of Trips Per day
Road
Length (avg. one way)
Miles
Miles
Miles
Miles
Speed Limit on Road
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
Controls
Used
Watering
Graveled
Chemical Stabilizer
Unpaved
XI
None
❑
As Needed
XI
No
Yes: Type
X1
No
❑
Yes
❑
Frequent:
Times /Day
Paved
Street Sweeping:
xl
No
❑
Yes
11. Compliance and Monitoring
I have filled out and attached Form OP -400 Compliance and Monitoring with all known applicable
requirements for this source: x Yes ❑ No
12. Required Attachments
The following must be attached in order for the application to be considered administratively complete
(unless previously submitted):
Emission Calculations
Fugitive Particulate Emission Control Plan (If applicable)
Form Revised August 2023 Page 14 of 4
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 006
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £r Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Compliance and Monitoring
Form OP -400
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
AIRS ID Number: 001 - 9E2C - 006
1. Instructions
Complete this form and attach it to the completed corresponding OP -300 series form for the applicable
emission unit. Each OP -300 series form must be accompanied by a Compliance and Monitoring form (OP -400).
Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing information may
be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the application shield of
Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. . B. Renewal and modification applications for equipment already included
in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected by the modification. Note
that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document
for more details.
2.
Emission Unit
Information
Facility
(example:
Identifier
5001)
Haul
Roads
3. Applicable
Requirements
Identify
recordkeeping,
attach
each
additional
applicable
and
descriptions.
reporting
requirement
requirements,
for
the
emission
and
the
unit,
basis
any
for
the
associated
requirement.
compliance
If
monitoring,
more space
is needed,
Emission
Limitations (tpy,
lb/hr,
lb/MMBtu,
gr/dscf,
etc.)
FUG
FUG
PM:
PM -10:
3.1
1.1
tpy
tpy
Opacity
Visible
periods
exceed
using
In
a.
shall,
control
maintenance
include,
procedures,
addition,
At
EPA
all
to
emissions
of
30%
practices
startup,
Method
times,
the
but
opacity
the
extent
procedures
is
and
including
not
following
inspection
must
9.
for
limited
process
for
(Reference:
practicable,
minimizing
not
more
exceed
modification,
requirements
periods
are
to,
of
than
being
monitoring
the
be
emissions.
Regulation
of
twenty
six
source.
minutes
start-up,
maintained
used
of
will
or
results,
percent
Regulation
(Reference:
adjustment
Determination
Number
be
in
shutdown,
and
based
any
(20%)
opacity
operated
sixty
1,
Number
on
Regulation
opacity
of
Section
and
information
observations,
consecutive
of
control
6,
malfunction,
in
whether
II.A.1.
during
.A.1.
a
Part
manner
Number
equipment
A,
or
available
normal
minutes.
6t 4.)
Subpart
not
review
the
consistent
6,
acceptable
Part
visible
facility,
operation
to
of
Opacity
A,
operating
the
A.
General
emissions
with
General
and
Division,
must
operating
of
good
the
control
and
be
Provisions,
Provisions
source.
must
air
which
determined
maintenance
equipment
pollution
and
not
may
apply
During
from
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 006
Page I1of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
TM
40 CFR 60.11
b. No article, machine, equipment, or process shall be used to conceal an emission that would otherwise
constitute a violation of an applicable standard. Such concealment includes, but is not limited to, the use of
gaseous diluents to achieve compliance with an opacity standard or with a standard that is based on the
concentration of a pollutant in the gases discharged to the atmosphere. (S 60.12)
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
Operational Limitation(s) (hrs/yr, MMscf/yr, lb/yr, etc.)
N/A
Other Requirements
List all other applicable requirements for this emission point.
Regulation Number 2
Regulation Number 3
4. Monitoring Requirements
Complete the following monitoring questions about the emission unit.
Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements? Yes X
No
Form Revised August 2023 Page 12 of 4
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 006
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Pollutant(s) or Parameter(s): Click here to enter text.
Requirement(s): Click here to enter text.
Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS)
Predictive Emission Monitoring System (PEMS)
Continuous Emission Rate Monitoring System (CERMS)
Other (describe): Click here to enter text.
Form OP -400
Periodic Compliance Testing? Yes x No
Pollutant(s): Click here to enter text.
Frequency: Click here to enter text.
Date of last Division -approved test: Click here to enter text .
Other? Yes x No
Describe: Click here to enter text.
Frequency: Click here to enter text.
5. Compliance Status and Commitment
Indicate the compliance status of the emission point as of the date of submittal:
In compliance with all applicable requirements
Not in compliance (fill out Section 6 below if schedule of compliance is required)
For applicable requirements this emission point is currently in compliance with:
x
The emission point will continue to comply with these requirements
For applicable requirements that will become effective during this permit term:
The emission point will comply with these requirements in a timely basis
x
x
6. Schedule
of
Compliance
Complete
required.
applicable
administrative
Also,
this
requirement.
section
complete
orders,
if
"Not
Attach
etc.
this
in
section
for
this
compliance"
copies
requirement.
if
of
the
applicant
any
was
judicial
answered
is required
consent
in Section
to submit
decrees,
5 and
a
compliance
a schedule
schedule
of
of
orders
compliance
compliance
on
consent,
is
by an
or
(Description
Applicable
Requirement
and
Citation)
Click here to enter text.
Reason
for
Noncompliance
Click here to enter text.
Narrative
Compliance
Description
Achieved
Will
be
How
Click here to enter
text.
Provide a schedule
of
corrective
leading
action(s),
to compliance,
including an enforceable
including a date
for
sequence
final
compliance.
of
actions with
milestones,
Corrective Action
Date to
be Achieved
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 006
Page 13of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
a
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
Click here to enter text
Click here to enter text.
Click
here to enter text.
Click
here to
text.
enter
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
First Progress
Frequency
Report
of Submittals
will
be Submitted
Thereafter:
on: click
Click here
here
to enter text
to enter text.
.
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 006
14 of 4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine
Form OP -302
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
AIRS ID Number: 123 - 9E2C - 009
1. Instructions
Included on the Colorado Air Pollution Control Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -302A) for this engine
form. Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing information
may be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the application shield of
Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. Renewal and modification applications for equipment already included
in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected by the modification. Note
that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document
for more details.
2. Engine Information
Facility
(example:
Identifier
S001)
N/A
Engine Information
Manufacturer
Model
Serial
Number
Isuzu
BP-4LE2X
7253219
Dates
Manufacture
Order
Date
First
Date
Date
engine
operation
commenced
last
date: Click
was
P
modified/reconstructed:
date:
first
date:
2019
here
August
construction:
located
g
to enter
to Colorado:
1, 2022
Click
Click
text.
here
2019
here
to enter text.
to enter text.
Construction
Underlying
Permit
Yes
Permit
15WE1395
(if applicable):
Click here
to enter type and package.
X
❑No
Permit
General
Number:
Exemptions
List
.
information):
any state exemptions that
Click here to
apply
enter
to this engine (See Instruction Sheet
text.
for more
3. Engine Characteristics
Function
X
Standard
❑
Peaking Power
❑
Emergency
❑
Fire Pump
Black Start
Other (specify) Click
here to enter text.
Engine Characteristics
(Check all that
apply)
Spark Ignition
x
Compression
Ignition
Dual Fuel
Lean Burn
Rich Burn
x
Turbocharged
g
Low
NOx Design
g
2 -Stroke
4 -Stroke
Air Fuel Ratio Controller (AFRC)
Permitted Maximum
Hours
7,500 hr/yr
Horsepower
Nameplate
Site -rated Horsepower
Horsepower:
P
66
(if applicable):
66
General Description of
Equipment
One of two primary
power generators that provide electrical
power to the
site.
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 009
Page I1of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -302
Should the Division include an alternative operating scenario (AOS) in the permit? x Yes
Date of last AOS replacement (if applicable): August 1, 2022
Last AOS replacement type (if applicable): Temporary x Permanent
No
4. Fuel
Information
Types
of
all
Fuels
that
(check
apply)
x
Diesel
Natural
Gas
Propane
Landfill
Gas
Other
(specify):
Click
here
to enter text .
Permit
Throughput
Limitation
25,171
gal/yr
(gal/hour
Fuel Consumption
or scf/hour)
3.4
gal/hr
Brake
Specific
Consumption
applicable)
Fuel
(if
BSFC
(Btu/hp-hr):
7,000
Fuel
(specify
Heat
Content
units)
137,000
Btu/gal
Displacement
Displacement
Number
of
Cylinders:
(specify
4
units,
typically
L/cyl or cc): 0.54
L/cyl
5. State and
Federal
Regulations
Rule
Applicability
How will
you comply
with
this
Regulation?
40
Subpart
CFR
P
Part 63
ZZZZ
Subject
Not
Subject
Comply
with
requirements
of NSPS
IIII.
IX]
40
CFR
Subpart
Part
1111
60
Subject
Not
Subject
See
-
-
-
-
-
-
Permit
Emissions
Oxides
Emissions
per
Emissions
grams
All
(1)
(2)
maximum
Compliance
of
or
the
All
configured,
specifications
manufacturer.
If
the
that
backpressure
shall
the
in
the
15WE1395,
hp
fuel
Sulfur
Have
Division
engines
filter
notifies
a
engine
be
-hour.
per
fuel
combined
used
readily
a
kept
of
of
of
content
must
hp
aromatic
minimum
shall
specifications
for
and
operated,
Non
Carbon
Particulate
-hour.
shall
is
the
Issuance
accessible
and
limit
of
inspection
control
equipped
be
-Methane
any
shall
shall
be
installed
owner
meet
instructions
compound
of
Monoxide
cetane
demonstrated
corrective
the
not
not
devices
and
6,
Matter
the
or
provided
location
with
engine
Condition
Hydrocarbons
exceed
upon
operator
following
exceed
index
maintained
with
shall
content
provided
a
action
shall
request.
must
diesel
a
is
and
3.5
15
of
by
by
backpressure
approached.
not
when
7
not
40
be
grams
specifications:
ppm.
maintaining
the
taken
exceed
of
made
according
particulate
and
exceed
or
installed,
by
35%
supplier
the
have
the
available
after
Nitrogen
per
by
high
3.7
engine
a
Records
hp
0.30
volume.
to
monitor
-hour.
grams
copies
on
the
filter,
the
-site
to
x
Form Revise August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 009
Page 12of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -302
backpressure
that the high
monitor
backpressure
has notified
limit is
the
approached.
owner or operator
40
Subpart
CFR Part 60
JJJJ
❑
Subject
Click
here to enter text.
x
Not
Subject
Colorado
No.
26
Regulation
Part
B
Subject
Click here to enter text.
x
Not
Subject
Reasonably
Control
(RACT)
Technology
Available
See Permit 15WE1395,
Issuance 6, Condition 9
x
Subject
- Compliance with
the requirements of NSPS
Subpart
IIII
was
Not
Subject
assumed to
be RACT for this
source.
Note
equipment
that
the applicant
in a
nonattainment
may
be asked
or attainment/maintenance
to provide a RACT
analysis if
area.
new or modified
Compliance Assurance
Monitoring (CAM)
If subject,
addressed
attach
in the
permit
Form OP
or
-203 CAM unless CAM
a CAM plan is not due
has already
yet.
been
Subject
x
Not
Subject
Colorado
No.
Requirements
1
Regulation
Opacity
These requirements
are identified
in Form OP -400.
X
Subject
Not
Subject
Other
(specify)
Click here to enter text.
Colorado
Regulation No.
1 PM Requirements
Colorado
1 SO2
Requirements
Regulation
No.
Subject
XI
Subject
❑
Not
Subject
x
Not
Subject
Colorado Regulation No.
6 PM Requirements
Colorado Regulation
6 SO2 Requirements
No.
Subject
x
Subject
Not
Subject
x
Not
Subject
6. Control
Device Information
Is
any emission
If yes, describe
control
control
equipment
device(s)
or
below:
practice used
to reduce emissions?
Yes
No
❑
x
Control
Description
Device
Click here to describe control
device.
Pollutant
PM
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
NOx
VOC
CO
Lead
Enter
Other
Control
Efficiency
I
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Controlled
HAP
Individual
All
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Control
Efficiency I
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
7. Criteria Pollutant
Emission Information
Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Emission
Factors
Controlled
Emission
Factors
Emission
Factors Units
Emission
Factor Source
(e.g. AP -42,
manufacturer,
source test,
etc.
Uncontrolled
Potential
Emit t
(tpy)
-to-
Permitted
Limitation
t
( pY)
Form Revise August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 009
Page 13of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -302
PM
2.20E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP
-42
0.46
0.46
PMio
2.20E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
0.46
0.46
PM2,5
2.20E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
0.46
0.46
SO2
2.05E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
0.43
0.43
NOx
3.10E-02
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
6.49
6.49
VOC
2.51E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
0.53
0.53
CO
6.68E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
1.40
1.40
Lead
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter
Pollutant
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
8. Hazardous
Air Pollutant
(HAP) Emission Information
Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Emission
Factors
Controlled
Emission
Factors
Emission
Factors
Units
Emission
Factor Source
(e.g. AP
manufacturer,
source
etc.
-42,
test,
Uncontrolled
Potential
Emit(tpy)t
-to-
Permitted
Limitation
( py)
Formaldehyde
1.18E-03
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
1.73E-03
1.73E-03
Acetaldehyde
7.67E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
1.12E-03
1.12E-03
Acrolein
9.25E-05
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
1.36E-04
1.36E-04
Benzene
9.33E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
1.37E-03
1.37E-03
Hexane
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
PTE
4.09E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP
-42
6.00E-04
6.00E-04
Toluene
Xylene
2.85E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
4.18E-04
4.18E-04
1,3
-Butadiene
3.91E-05
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
5.73E-05
5.73E-05
PAH
1.68E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
2.46E-04
2.46E-04
Total
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
9. Compliance and Monitoring
I have filled out and attached Form OP -400 Compliance and Monitoring with all known applicable
requirements for this emission unit: xi Yes No
10. Required Attachments
The following must be attached in order for the application to be considered administratively complete
(unless previously submitted):
Emission Calculations
Manufacturer Specifications or Contract Guarantee for Control Equipment (if applicable)
Form Revise August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 009
Page 14of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Compliance and Monitoring
Form OP -400
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
AIRS ID Number: 001 - 9E2C - 009
1. Instructions
Complete this form and attach it to the completed corresponding OP -300 series form for the applicable
emission unit. Each OP -300 series form must be accompanied by a Compliance and Monitoring form (OP -400).
Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing information may
be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the application shield of
Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. . B. Renewal and modification applications for equipment already included
in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected by the modification. Note
that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document
for more details.
2.
Emission Unit
Information
Facility
(example:
Identifier
5001)
49
kW
RICE
3. Applicable
Requirements
Identify
recordkeeping,
attach
each
additional
applicable
and
descriptions.
reporting
requirement
requirements,
for
the
emission
and
the
unit,
basis
any
for
the
associated
requirement.
compliance
If
monitoring,
more space
is needed,
Emission
Limitations (tpy,
lb/hr,
lb/MMBtu,
gr/dscf,
etc.)
PM:
PM
PM
SO2:
NOx:
VOC:
CO:
-10:
-2.5:
0.46
0.4
6.5
0.5
1.4
0.46
0.46
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
Opacity
Visible
periods
exceed
using
In
a.
shall,
control
maintenance
include,
procedures,
addition,
At
EPA
all
to
emissions
of
30%
times,
practices
startup,
Method
the
but
opacity
the
extent
is
and
procedures
including
not
following
inspection
must
9.
for
limited
process
for
(Reference:
practicable,
minimizing
not
more
exceed
modification,
requirements
periods
are
to,
of
than
being
monitoring
the
be
emissions.
Regulation
of
twenty
six
source.
minutes
start-up,
maintained
used
of
will
or
results,
percent
Regulation
(Reference:
adjustment
Determination
Number
be
in
shutdown,
and
based
any
(20%)
opacity
operated
sixty
1,
Number
on
Regulation
opacity
of
Section
and
information
observations,
consecutive
of
control
6,
malfunction,
in
whether
II.A.1.
during
.A.1.
a
Part
manner
Number
equipment
A,
or
available
normal
minutes.
6t 4.)
Subpart
not
review
the
consistent
6,
acceptable
Part
visible
facility,
operation
to
of
Opacity
A,
operating
the
A.
General
emissions
with
General
and
Division,
must
operating
of
good
the
control
and
be
Provisions,
Provisions
source.
must
air
which
determined
maintenance
equipment
pollution
and
not
may
apply
During
from
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 009
Page I1of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
TM
40 CFR 60.11
b. No article, machine, equipment, or process shall be used to conceal an emission that would otherwise
constitute a violation of an applicable standard. Such concealment includes, but is not limited to, the use of
gaseous diluents to achieve compliance with an opacity standard or with a standard that is based on the
concentration of a pollutant in the gases discharged to the atmosphere. (S 60.12)
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
Operational Limitation(s) (hrs/yr, MMscf/yr, lb/yr, etc.)
6,378 hrs/yr
Other Requirements
List all other applicable requirements for this emission point.
RACT
Regulation Number 2
Regulation Number 3
NSPS IIII
4. Monitoring Requirements
Complete the following monitoring questions about the emission unit.
Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements? Yes X
No
Form Revised August 2023 Page 12 of 4
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 009
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Pollutant(s) or Parameter(s): Click here to enter text.
Requirement(s): Click here to enter text.
Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS)
Predictive Emission Monitoring System (PEMS)
Continuous Emission Rate Monitoring System (CERMS)
Other (describe): Click here to enter text.
Form OP -400
Periodic Compliance Testing? Yes x No
Pollutant(s): Click here to enter text.
Frequency: Click here to enter text.
Date of last Division -approved test: Click here to enter text .
Other? Yes x No
Describe: Click here to enter text.
Frequency: Click here to enter text.
5. Compliance Status and Commitment
Indicate the compliance status of the emission point as of the date of submittal:
In compliance with all applicable requirements
Not in compliance (fill out Section 6 below if schedule of compliance is required)
For applicable requirements this emission point is currently in compliance with:
x
The emission point will continue to comply with these requirements
For applicable requirements that will become effective during this permit term:
The emission point will comply with these requirements in a timely basis
x
x
6. Schedule
of
Compliance
Complete
required.
applicable
administrative
Also,
this
requirement.
section
complete
orders,
if
"Not
Attach
etc.
this
in
section
for
this
compliance"
copies
requirement.
if
of
the
applicant
any
was
judicial
answered
is required
consent
in Section
to submit
decrees,
5 and
a
compliance
a schedule
schedule
of
of
orders
compliance
compliance
on
consent,
is
by an
or
(Description
Applicable
Requirement
and
Citation)
Click here to enter text.
Reason
for
Noncompliance
Click here to enter text.
Narrative
Compliance
Description
Achieved
Will
be
How
Click here to enter
text.
Provide a schedule
of
corrective
leading
action(s),
to compliance,
including an enforceable
including a date
for
sequence
final
compliance.
of
actions with
milestones,
Corrective Action
Date to
be Achieved
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 009
Page 13of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
a
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
Click here to enter text
Click here to enter text.
Click
here to enter text.
Click
here to
text.
enter
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
First Progress
Frequency
Report
of Submittals
will
be Submitted
Thereafter:
on: click
Click here
here
to enter text
to enter text.
.
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 009
14 of 4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine
Form OP -302
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
AIRS ID Number: 123 - 9E2C - 010
1. Instructions
Included on the Colorado Air Pollution Control Website is an instruction sheet (Form OP -302A) for this engine
form. Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing information
may be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the application shield of
Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. Renewal and modification applications for equipment already included
in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected by the modification. Note
that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document
for more details.
2. Engine Information
Facility
(example:
Identifier
S001)
N/A
Engine Information
Manufacturer
Model
Serial
Number
Kohler
KD13404TCR/22N
5133303960
Dates
Manufacture
Order
Date
First
Date
Date
engine
operation
commenced
last
date: Unknown
was
modified
date:
date:
first
11/2021
construction:
/reconstructed:
(rental)
located
October
to Colorado:
23
11/2021
2023
N/A
2021
Construction
Underlying
Permit
Yes
o
15WE1395
(if
applicable):
Click here to enter type and package.
x
ll
N
Permit
General
Number:
Permit
Exemptions
List any state exemptions that apply
information): Click here to enter
to this engine (See Instruction Sheet for more
text.
3. Engine Characteristics
Function
x
Standard
Peaking Power
Emergency
Fire Pump
Black Start
Other (specify) Click here to enter text.
Engine Characteristics
(Check all
that
apply)
Spark
Ignition
x
Compression
Ignition
Dual
Fuel
Lean Burn
Rich Burn
x
Turbocharged
g
Low NOx
Design
g
2 -Stroke
XI
4
-Stroke
Air Fuel Ratio Controller
(AFRC)
Permitted Maximum
Hours
5,445
hr/yr
Horsepower
Nameplate
Site
-rated
Horsepower: 78
Horsepower (if applicable):
P
78
General Description of
Equipment
One of two primary power generators that
provide electrical
power
to the site.
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 123-9E2C-010
Page I1of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -302
Should the Division include an alternative operating scenario (AOS) in the permit? x Yes
Date of last AOS replacement (if applicable): October 23, 2023
Last AOS replacement type (if applicable): Temporary x Permanent
No
4. Fuel
Information
Types
of
all
Fuels
that
(check
apply)
x
Diesel
Natural
Gas
Propane
Landfill
Gas
Other
(specify):
Click
here
to enter text .
Permit
Throughput
Limitation
21,630
(gal/hour
Fuel Consumption
or scf/hour)
4 gal/hr
Brake
Specific
Consumption
applicable)
Fuel
(if
BSFC
(Btu/hp-hr):
7,000
Fuel
(specify
Heat
Content
units)
137,000
Btu/gal
Displacement
Displacement
Number
of
Cylinders:
(specify
4
units,
typically
L/cyl or cc): 0.84
L/cyl
5. State and
Federal
Regulations
Rule
Applicability
How will
you comply
with
this
Regulation?
40
Subpart
CFR
P
Part 63
ZZZZ
Subject
Not
Subject
Comply
with
requirements
of NSPS
IIII.
IX]
40
CFR
Subpart
Part
1111
60
Subject
Not
Subject
See
-
-
-
-
-
-
Permit
Emissions
Oxides
hour.
Emissions
per
Emissions
grams
All
(1)
(2)
maximum
Compliance
of
or
the
All
configured,
specifications
manufacturer.
If
the
that
backpressure
the
in
the
15WE1395,
fuel
Sulfur
Have
engines
hp
Division
filter
notifies
a
-hour.
per
fuel
engine
combined
used
readily
a
of
of
of
hp
content
aromatic
must
minimum
shall
specifications
for
and
operated,
Non
Carbon
Particulate
-hour.
shall
is
the
limit
Issuance
accessible
and
inspection
control
equipped
be
-Methane
shall
shall
be
installed
owner
meet
instructions
compound
of
Monoxide
cetane
demonstrated
the
not
not
devices
and
or
6,
Matter
the
location
provided
with
engine
Condition
Hydrocarbons
exceed
upon
operator
following
exceed
index
maintained
with
shall
content
provided
a
shall
request.
must
diesel
a
is
and
3.0
15
of
by
by
backpressure
approached.
not
when
7
not
40
be
grams
specifications:
ppm.
maintaining
the
exceed
of
made
according
particulate
and
exceed
or
installed,
by
35%
supplier
the
have
the
available
Nitrogen
per
by
high
3.7
engine
a
Records
kilowatt-
0.22
volume.
to
monitor
grams
copies
on
filter,
the
-site
to
x
Form Revise August 2023
AIRS ID: 123 - 9E2C - 010
Page 12of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -302
shall
backpressure
that the
be
kept
high
of any
monitor
backpressure
corrective
has notified
action
limit is
taken after the
the owner or operator
approached.
40 CFR
Subpart
Part
JJJJ
60
❑
Subject
Click
here to enter text.
x
Not
Subject
Colorado
No.
Regulation
26 Part B
❑
Subject
Click here to enter text.
x
Not
Subject
Reasonably
Control
Available
Technology
See
Permit 15WE1395,
Issuance 6, Condition
9
[X
Subject
- Compliance with
the
requirements
of
NSPS
Subpart
IIII
was
❑
Not
Subject
assumed to
be RACT for this source.
(RACT)
Note
equipment
that
the applicant may
in a nonattainment
be asked
or
to provide a RACT analysis if
attainment/maintenance area.
new or modified
Compliance
Monitoring
Assurance
(CAM)
If
subject,
addressed
attach
in the
Form OP -203 CAM unless CAM
permit or a CAM plan is not due
has already
yet.
been
Subject
x
Not
Subject
Colorado
No.
Requirements
1
Regulation
Opacity
P Y
x
Subject
These requirements are identified in Form OP -400.
q
❑
Not
Subject
Other
(specify)
Click here to enter text.
Colorado
1 PM
Regulation No.
Requirements
Colorado Regulation
1 SO2 Requirements
No.
Subject
x
Subject
❑
Not
Subject
xl
Not
Subject
Colorado
6 PM
Regulation
Requirements
No.
Colorado Regulation No.
6 SO2 Requirements
Subject
Fry
Subject
Not Subject
x
Not
Subject
6. Control Device Information
If
Is any emission
yes, describe
control equipment
control device(s)
or
below:
practice
used
to reduce emissions?
Yes
No
❑
><
Control
Description
Device
Click here to describe control device.
Pollutant
PM
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
NOx
VOC
CO
Lead
Enter
Other
Control
Efficiency
I
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Controlled
HAP
Individual
All
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Enter
HAP
Control Efficiency I
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
7. Criteria Pollutant
Emission Information
Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Emission
Factors
Controlled
Emission
Factors
Emission
Factors
Units
Emission
Factor Source
(e.g. AP -42,
manufacturer,
source test,
etc.
Uncontrolled
Potential -to-
Emit t
(tpy)
Permitted
Limitation
t
( PY)
Form Revise August 2023
AIRS ID: 123-9E2C-010
Page 13of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Form OP -302
PM
2.20E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP
-42
0.47
0.47
PMio
2.20E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
0.47
0.47
PM2,5
2.20E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
0.47
0.47
SO2
2.05E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
0.43
0.43
NOx
3.10E-02
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
6.56
6.56
VOC
2.51E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
0.53
0.53
CO
6.68E-03
EF
lb/hp-hr
AP -42
1.41
1.41
Lead
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter
Pollutant
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
8. Hazardous
Air Pollutant
(HAP) Emission Information
Pollutant
Uncontrolled
Emission
Factors
Controlled
Emission
Factors
Emission
Factors
Units
Emission
Factor Source
(e.g. AP
manufacturer,
source
etc.
-42,
test,
Uncontrolled
Potential
Emit
t
(tpy)
-to-
Permitted
Limitation
t
( py)
Formaldehyde
1.18E-03
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
6.36E-04
6.36E-04
Acetaldehyde
7.67E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
4.13E-04
4.13E-04
Acrolein
9.25E-05
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
4.98E-05
4.98E-05
Benzene
9.33E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
5.03E-04
5.03E-04
Hexane
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
4.09E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP
-42
2.20E-04
2.20E-04
Toluene
Xylene
2.85E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
1.54E-04
1.54E-04
1,3
-Butadiene
3.91E-05
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
2.11E-05
2.11E-05
PAH
1.68E-04
EF
lb/MMBtu
AP -42
9.05E-05
9.05E-05
Total
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
Enter HAP
EF
EF
EF Units
EF Source
PTE
Limit
9. Compliance and Monitoring
I have filled out and attached Form OP -400 Compliance and Monitoring with all known applicable
requirements for this emission unit: xi Yes No
10. Required Attachments
The following must be attached in order for the application to be considered administratively complete
(unless previously submitted):
Emission Calculations
Manufacturer Specifications or Contract Guarantee for Control Equipment (if applicable)
Form Revise August 2023
AIRS ID: 123-9E2C-010
Page 14of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health £t Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health & Environment
Compliance and Monitoring
Form OP -400
Title V Operating
Permit Number:
Initial
AIRS ID Number: 001 - 9E2C - 010
1. Instructions
Complete this form and attach it to the completed corresponding OP -300 series form for the applicable
emission unit. Each OP -300 series form must be accompanied by a Compliance and Monitoring form (OP -400).
Refer to the instruction sheet or contact the Division with questions. Any form with missing information may
be determined administratively incomplete and may result in inability to grant the application shield of
Regulation No. 3, Part C, Section II.B. . B. Renewal and modification applications for equipment already included
in the Title V permit are allowed to only complete portions of the form affected by the modification. Note
that if using copy and paste; the applicant must paste as plain text. See "General Instructions" document
for more details.
2.
Emission Unit
Information
Facility
(example:
Identifier
5001)
58
kW
RICE
3. Applicable
Requirements
Identify
recordkeeping,
attach
each
additional
applicable
and
descriptions.
reporting
requirement
requirements,
for
the
emission
and
the
unit,
basis
any
for
the
associated
requirement.
compliance
If
monitoring,
more space
is needed,
Emission
Limitations (tpy,
lb/hr,
lb/MMBtu,
gr/dscf,
etc.)
PM:
PM
PM
SO2:
NOx:
VOC:
CO:
-10:
-2.5:
0.47
0.4
6.6
0.5
1.4
0.47
0.47
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
tpy
Opacity
Visible
periods
exceed
using
In
a.
shall,
control
maintenance
include,
procedures,
addition,
At
EPA
all
to
emissions
of
30%
times,
practices
startup,
Method
the
but
opacity
the
extent
is
and
procedures
including
not
following
inspection
must
9.
for
limited
process
for
(Reference:
practicable,
minimizing
not
more
exceed
modification,
requirements
periods
are
to,
of
than
being
monitoring
the
be
emissions.
Regulation
of
twenty
six
source.
minutes
start-up,
maintained
used
of
will
or
results,
percent
Regulation
(Reference:
adjustment
Determination
Number
be
in
shutdown,
and
based
any
(20%)
opacity
operated
sixty
1,
Number
on
Regulation
opacity
of
Section
and
information
observations,
consecutive
of
control
6,
malfunction,
in
whether
II.A.1.
during
.A.1.
a
Part
manner
Number
equipment
A,
or
available
normal
minutes.
6t 4.)
Subpart
not
review
the
consistent
6,
acceptable
Part
visible
facility,
operation
to
of
Opacity
A,
operating
the
A.
General
emissions
with
General
and
Division,
must
operating
of
good
the
control
and
be
Provisions,
Provisions
source.
must
air
which
determined
maintenance
equipment
pollution
and
not
may
apply
During
from
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 010
Page I1of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
TM
40 CFR 60.11
b. No article, machine, equipment, or process shall be used to conceal an emission that would otherwise
constitute a violation of an applicable standard. Such concealment includes, but is not limited to, the use of
gaseous diluents to achieve compliance with an opacity standard or with a standard that is based on the
concentration of a pollutant in the gases discharged to the atmosphere. (S 60.12)
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
Operational Limitation(s) (hrs/yr, MMscf/yr, lb/yr, etc.)
5,445 hr/yr
Other Requirements
List all other applicable requirements for this emission point.
RACT
Regulation Number 2
Regulation Number 3
NSPS IIII
4. Monitoring Requirements
Complete the following monitoring questions about the emission unit.
Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements? Yes X
No
Form Revised August 2023 Page 12 of 4
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 010
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
S
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Et Environment
Pollutant(s) or Parameter(s): Click here to enter text.
Requirement(s): Click here to enter text.
Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS)
Predictive Emission Monitoring System (PEMS)
Continuous Emission Rate Monitoring System (CERMS)
Other (describe): Click here to enter text.
Form OP -400
Periodic Compliance Testing? Yes x No
Pollutant(s): Click here to enter text.
Frequency: Click here to enter text.
Date of last Division -approved test: Click here to enter text .
Other? Yes x No
Describe: Click here to enter text.
Frequency: Click here to enter text.
5. Compliance Status and Commitment
Indicate the compliance status of the emission point as of the date of submittal:
In compliance with all applicable requirements
Not in compliance (fill out Section 6 below if schedule of compliance is required)
For applicable requirements this emission point is currently in compliance with:
x
The emission point will continue to comply with these requirements
For applicable requirements that will become effective during this permit term:
The emission point will comply with these requirements in a timely basis
x
x
6. Schedule
of
Compliance
Complete
required.
applicable
administrative
Also,
this
requirement.
section
complete
orders,
if
"Not
Attach
etc.
this
in
section
for
this
compliance"
copies
requirement.
if
of
the
applicant
any
was
judicial
answered
is required
consent
in Section
to submit
decrees,
5 and
a
compliance
a schedule
schedule
of
of
orders
compliance
compliance
on
consent,
is
by an
or
(Description
Applicable
Requirement
and
Citation)
Click here to enter text.
Reason
for
Noncompliance
Click here to enter text.
Narrative
Compliance
Description
Achieved
Will
be
How
Click here to enter
text.
Provide a schedule
of
corrective
leading
action(s),
to compliance,
including an enforceable
including a date
for
sequence
final
compliance.
of
actions with
milestones,
Corrective Action
Date to
be Achieved
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 010
Page 13of4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
a
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Er Environment
Form OP -400
Click here to enter text
Click here to enter text.
Click
here to enter text.
Click here
to text.
enter
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
First Progress
Frequency
Report
of Submittals
will
be Submitted
Thereafter:
on: click
Click here
here
to
to enter
enter text .
text .
Form Revised August 2023
AIRS ID: 001 - 9E2C - 010
14 of 4
COLORADO
Department of Public
Health Fr Environment
APPENDIX B. FACILITY PLOT PLAN
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants B-1
APPENDIX C. EJ SUMMARY
Biochar Now, LLC / Initial Title V Permit Application
Trinity Consultants C-2
From: Matthew Petrosky
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 4:04 PM
To: cdphe_apcd_ejreports@state.co.us
Cc: George lwaszek; jgaspard@biocharnow.com
Subject Biochar Now Initial Title V EJ Summary
Attachments: Biochar Now Environmental Justice Report (2023-1101).pdf
Hello,
I am submitting the attached Environmental Justice Summary on behalf of Biochar Now, LLC, for their Initial Title V
Application. Included in the attachment is a PDF of the facility's Environmental Justice Report, answers to the
Supplemental Information Google Form, and an aerial map of the facility.
Please reach out with any questions.
Thank you,
Matt Petrosky
Associate Consultant
P 720.638.7647 I M 814.691.1227
Email: Matthew.Petrosky@trinityconsultants.com
1391 North Speer Blvd, Suite 350 I Denver, Colorado 80204
Trinity
trans u« ants
Connect with us: LinkedIn / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / trinityconsultants.com
Stay current on environmental issues. Subscribe today to receive Trinity's free EHS Quarterly.
Trinity
Consultants -S
1391 N Speer Blvd, Ste 350, Denver, CO 80204 / P 720.638.7647 / trinityconsultants.com
October 31, 2023
DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Air Pollution Control Division (APCD)
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, APCD-SS-B1
Denver, CO 80246-1530
RE' Environmental Justice Summary - In Support of Initial Title V Application, AIRS 123-9E2C
Biochar Now, LLC — Berthoud Plant
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of Biochar Now, LLC, Trinity Consultants is submitting the enclosed Environmental Justice
Summary (EJ Summary) for the Biochar Now Berthoud Plant at 19500 Weld County Road 7, located in
Census Block Group 081230021032 in Weld County.
Biochar Now operates under Construction Permit 15WE1395, Issuance 6, with enforceable limits for NOx
emissions greater than 25 tons per year. The reclassification of the Denver Metro -North Front Range
(DMNFR) nonattainment area to severe non -attainment for the 2008 8 -hour ozone standard on November 7,
2022, lowered major source thresholds for NOx and VOC emissions for facilities in the DMNFR from 50 to 25
tons per year. Biochar Now submitted a modification to 15WE1395 in March 2023 to reduce potential NOx
emissions below 25 tpy but a revised permit with enforceable limits less than the major source threshold will
not be issued prior to the effective reclassification date of November 7, 2023. As a result, an initial Title V
application is being submitted to maintain the permit application shield for a timely application. Biochar Now
will withdraw the initial Title V permit application once the synthetic minor construction permit is issued.
This EJ Summary is a required element of the initial Title V application.
Facilities that are located in more than one (1) census block group must submit an EJ summary for each
census block group within which they are operating. Since Biochar Now is located in one (1) census block
group, only one (1) EJ Summary is required and is being supplied. The EJ Summary shows that Biochar Now
is not located in a Disproportionately Impacted (DI) Community for any EJ metrics pursuant to Regulation
No. 3, Part B, Section III.5.c. Further, this application does not entail an increase in any emissions.
Therefore, Biochar Now is not subject to enhanced monitoring and/or modeling requirements for the initial
Title V application.
The EJ Summary consists of the following attachments:
(1) An "Environmental Justice Report" (EJ Report) in Attachment A generated using Colorado
EnvioScreen;
(2) An Environmental Justice Summary Supplemental Information Form in Attachment B; and
(3) Per Regulation No. 3, Part B, Section III.B.5.b, documentation of "Occupied Areas" within one mile
of Biochar Now as shown in a Google Earth aerial image in Attachment C.
CDPHE - Page 2
October 2023
If you have questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (814) 691-1227 or by email at
matthew.petrosky@trinityconsultants.com.
Sincerely,
TRINITY CONSULTANTS
Matthew Petrosky
Associate Consultant
CC: Dylan Van Demark, Biochar Now
Jordan Gaspard, Biochar Now
George Iwaszek, Trinity Consultants
CDPHE - Page 3
October 2023
Attachment A. Environmental Justice Report
COLORADO
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health Ey Environment
Air Quality Regulation (Reg.) 3
Environmental Justice Report
Applicant Information
Company Name: Biochar Now, LLC
Facility Name: Berthoud Plant
Plant AIRS ID Number: 123/9E2C
Permit Type: Construction Permit / Initial Title V Operating Permit
Permit Number: 15WE1395
Facility location used for generating the report: 40.282 , -104.9938
Environmental Justice Summary
Weld County
Census Block Group 081230021032
Air Quality Reg. 3 Disproportionately
Impacted (DI) Community
No
Air Quality Reg. 3 Community Type
Not Disproportionately Impacted
Low-income Population
People of Color Population
Limited English Proficiency
Population
Housing Cost Burdened
Population
CO EnviroScreen Percentile
Score
Environmental Justice Overview
26.4%
46.06
Environmental Exposures Percentile Score 66.48
The environmental exposures score represents a community's exposure to certain environmental risks relative to the rest of the state. The
score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher burden. The environmental exposures score does not cover all pollutants;
it is the average of data on diesel particulate matter, traffic proximity, ozone, PM 2.5, air toxics, other air pollutants, lead exposure risk,
drinking water violations, and noise.
Environmental Effects Percentile Score 63.31
Report Created: Friday, October 27, 2023
CO EnviroScreen Version 1.0
1/7
The environmental effects score represents how many hazardous or toxic sites are in a community relative to the rest of the state. The
score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating higher burden. The score is the average of data on proximity to mining, oil and
gas operations, impaired surface waters, wastewater discharge facilities, Superfund sites, facilities that use hazardous chemicals, and
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes.
Climate Vulnerability Percentile Score 65.97
The climate burden score represents a community's risk of drought, flood, extreme heat, and wildfire compared to the rest of the state.
The score ranges from 0 to 100, the higher the score, the higher the burden.
Sensitive Populations Percentile Score 49.07
The sensitive populations score captures how at risk a community is to environmental exposures and climate impacts as it relates to
health. For example, air pollution has stronger impacts on older and younger people, and people with chronic conditions such as asthma.
The score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score being worse. The score is calculated using data on asthma hospitalization rate, cancer
prevalence, diabetes prevalence, heart disease prevalence, life expectancy, low birth weight rate, mental health, population over 65, and
population under 5.
Demographics Percentile Score 23.08
The demographics score represents a community's social and economic vulnerabilities. The score ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher
number representing a higher vulnerability. It is calculated using data on people living with disabilities, housing cost burden, educational
attainment, limited English proficiency, income, and race and ethnicity.
Report Created: Friday, October 27, 2023
CO EnviroScreen Version 1.0
2/7
Pollution and Climate Indicators
Indicator
Original Unit of Measure Percentile
Air Toxics Emissions
distance weighted measure of estimated air toxics emissions 99.24
Diesel Particulate Matter
micrograms per cubic meter 42.89
population weighted duration (in weeks) of resolved and unresolved
Drinking Water Regulations 83.49
health based violations from active community public water systems
Fine Particle Pollution (PM 2.5)
micrograms per cubic meter 73.9
Impaired Streams and Rivers
average impairment and assessment status of streams 76.74
Risk percentage of housing units built before 1960, as an indicator of
Lead Exposure 66.19
potential exposure to lead
Noise
decibles A 18.49
Other Air Pollutants
distance weighted measure of estimated other air pollutant emissions 98.64
Ozone
parts per billion 39.92
Proximity to Hazardous Waste
Facilities
distance weighted count of hazardous waste facilities within 5 km 39.89
distance weighted measure of the total number of active coal, hard
Proximity to Mining Locations 83.46
rock, and construction materials mining permits
Proximity to National Priorities List .
distance weighted count of proposed or listed NPL sites with 5 km
Sites
34.15
Proximity to Oil and Gas
distance weighted measure of the total number of active oil and gas
locations
99.04
Proximity to Risk Management
Plan Sites
distance weighted count of RMP facilities within 5 km 52.49
Traffic Proximity and Volume
amount of vehicular traffic nearby, and distance from roads 27.26
Wastewater Discharge Indicator
toxic chemical concentrations in stream segments per km 65.34
Drought
sum of weekly total percent of an area experiencing a severe, extreme,
or exceptional drought
22.93
Extreme Heat Days
average number of high heat days between May and September from
2016 to 2020
86.01
Floodplains
percentage of each geographic area where there is at least a one
percent chance of flooding annually
77.8
Wildfire Risk
mean wildfire hazard potential within each geographic area as
determined by the US Forest Service, 2021
67.86
Report Created: Friday, October 27, 2023
CO EnviroScreen Version 1.0
3/7
Health and Social Indicators
Indicator
Orignial Unit of Measure
Percentile
Asthma Hospitalization Rate rate of hospitalization per 100,000 people
40.09
Cancer Prevalence percent of adults
67.74
Diabetes Prevalence percent of adults
36
Heart Disease in Adults percent of adults
88.93
Life Expectancy
years
16.39
Low Birth Weight
percent of singleton births
9.02
Mental Health Indicator percent of adults
45.25
Population over 64 years of age percent of total population
65.29
Population under 5 years of age percent of total population
69.65
Disability
percent of total population
27.07
Housing Cost Burdened percent of total population
40.14
Less Than High School Education percent of total population
25.26
Linguistic Isolation percent of total population
54.42
Low Income
percent of total population
30.39
People of Color
percent of total population
12.09
Understanding the Data
The values shown in the Pollution and Climate Indicator and Health and Social Indicator tables are percentiles. Percentiles
are a way to see how one area compares to other areas in Colorado. Percentile values range from 0 - 100. A higher score
indicates higher burden. Specifically, the percentile tells you the percentage of places in Colorado that have a lower score
than the selected location. For example, an area with 85 percentile score for the noise indicator, ranks in the top 15% of
areas impacted by noise in Colorado. That means that 85% of the other Census Block Groups in Colorado have a lower
score for noise impacts.
Number of Census Black Groups
Percentile Score
(Norma[ distribution for visuQlzation purposes only)
Burden
85th Percentile
15%
Set
The data in the report comes from Colorado EnviroScreen version 1.0. Developed in 2022 by CDPHE and Colorado State
University, EnviroScreen maps the overlap of environmental exposures and effects, climate vulnerability, sensitive
Report Created: Friday, October 27, 2023
CO EnviroScreen Version 1.0
4/7
populations, and demographics to better understand environmental injustice and environmental health risks in Colorado.
For more detailed information on the data sources used in Colorado EnviroScreen Version 1.0 see the
technical documentation.
On the first page of the report, red text highlights if values for a census block group meet or exceed the criteria for
definition of Disproportionately Impacted Community for Air Quality Regulation 3. On subsequent pages of the report,
red text highlights indicators in the top percentiles for Colorado that may warrant additional consideration during the
permitting process. The Environmental Justice Report is not intended to show individual health risk or exposure.
In the Environmental Justice Summary on the first page, values shown in red indicate a census block group that meets or
exceeds the following criteria to qualify as a Disproportionately Impacted (DI) Community for Air Quality Reg 3:
- Over 40% of households are low-income (meaning they are at or below 200% of the federal poverty level),
- 40% of the population identify as people of color,
- 50% of households are housing -cost burdened (meaning they spend more than 30% of household income on housing
costs), or
- 20% of the population is linguistically isolated (meaning no adults in a household speak English well).
A census block group that meets or exceeds any of these percentages is labeled as a Socioeconomically Vulnerable
Community (SVC).
The CO EnviroScreen Percentile Score, which is also found on the first page of the Environmental Justice Report, is
written in red if it is above the 80th percentile. A census block group with a CO EnviroScreen Score above the 80th
percentile is labeled as a Cumulatively Impacted Community (CIC).
In other sections of the Environmental Justice Report, including the Environmental Justice Overview, Pollution and
Climate Indicators, and Health and Social Indicators sections, indicator and component scores over the 80th percentile
are also highlighted in red. The 80th percentile threshold is used in most cases to flag census block groups that have
indicators and groups of indicators (components) that are in the top 20% of census block groups in Colorado. These
indicators and components are flagged because they may warrant further review in the permitting process by the permit
applicant and/or the Division staff reviewing the permit.
As explained on page 11 of the User Guide, for most indicators, the indicator is highlighted in red if it is above the 80th
percentile to indicate that the census block group where the facility is located faces higher risks based on that indicator
compared to other Colorado communities. However, less than 20% of census block groups in Colorado have oil and gas
facilities or mining locations. Accordingly, all census block groups in Colorado score above the 80th percentile for
proximity to these two types of facilities because even having zero facilities puts a community in the top 20%.
Accordingly, the Environmental Justice Report highlights a census block group in red if it is above the 85th percentile for
mining facilities and above the 90th percentile for oil and gas facilities. This ensures that only census block groups with a
greater number of facilities than the statewide average of zero are highlighted on the EJ Report.
On the first page of the report, red text highlights if values for a census block group meet or exceed the criteria for
definition of Disproportionately Impacted Community for Air Quality Regulation 3. On subsequent pages of the report,
red text highlights indicators in the top percentiles for Colorado that may warrant additional consideration during the
permitting process. The Environmental Justice Report is not intended to show individual health risk or exposure.
In the Environmental Justice Summary on the first page, values shown in red indicate a census block group that meets or
exceeds the following criteria to qualify as a Disproportionately Impacted (DI) Community for Air Quality Reg 3:
- Over 40% of households are low-income (meaning they are at or below 200% of the federal poverty level),
- 40% of the population identify as people of color,
Report Created: Friday, October 27, 2023
CO EnviroScreen Version 1.0
5/7
- 50% of households are housing -cost burdened (meaning they spend more than 30% of household income on housing
costs), or
- 20% of the population is linguistically isolated (meaning no adults in a household speak English well).
A census block group that meets or exceeds any of these percentages is labeled as a Socioeconomically Vulnerable
Community (SVC).
The CO EnviroScreen Percentile Score, which is also found on the first page of the Environmental Justice Report, is
written in red if it is above the 80th percentile. A census block group with a CO EnviroScreen Score above the 80th
percentile is labeled as a Cumulatively Impacted Community (CIC).
In other sections of the Environmental Justice Report, including the Environmental Justice Overview, Pollution and
Climate Indicators, and Health and Social Indicators sections, indicator and component scores over the 80th percentile
are also highlighted in red. The 80th percentile threshold is used in most cases to flag census block groups that have
indicators and groups of indicators (components) that are in the top 20% of census block groups in Colorado. These
indicators and components are flagged because they may warrant further review in the permitting process by the permit
applicant and/or the Division staff reviewing the permit.
As explained on page 11 of the User Guide, for most indicators, the indicator is highlighted in red if it is above the 80th
percentile to indicate that the census block group where the facility is located faces higher risks based on that indicator
compared to other Colorado communities. However, less than 20% of census block groups in Colorado have oil and gas
facilities or mining locations. Accordingly, all census block groups in Colorado score above the 80th percentile for
proximity to these two types of facilities because even having zero facilities puts a community in the top 20%.
Accordingly, the Environmental Justice Report highlights a census block group in red if it is above the 85th percentile for
mining facilities and above the 90th percentile for oil and gas facilities. This ensures that only census block groups with a
greater number of facilities than the statewide average of zero are highlighted on the EJ Report.
Report Created: Friday, October 27, 2023
CO EnviroScreen Version 1.0
6/7
Colorado EnviroScreen does:
- Show which areas in Colorado are more likely to have higher environmental health injustices.
- Identify areas in Colorado where government agencies can prioritize resources and work to reduce pollution and other sources
of environmental injustice.
- Provide information to empower communities to advocate to improve public health and the environment.
- Identify areas that meet the updated definition of "Disproportionately Impacted Community" under House Bill 23-1233 adopted
a definition that applies to all state agencies, including CDPHE.
- Identify areas where the Air Quality Regulation (Reg.) Number 3, which governs permitting in disproportionately impacted
communities, applies.
- Identify areas that meet the prior definition of "Disproportionately Impacted Community" under the Colorado Environmental
Justice Act (HB21-1266).
Colorado EnviroScreen does not:
- Define a healthy or unhealthy environment.
- Establish causal associations between environmental risks and health.
- Define all areas that may be affected by environmental injustice or specific environmental risks.
- Provide information about an individual person's health status or environment.
- Take all environmental exposures into account.
- Tell us about smaller areas within a census block group that may be more vulnerable to environmental exposures than other
areas.
- Provide information about non -human health or ecosystem risks.
Additional Resources
Frequently Asked Questions: Environmental Justice Report Tool for Air Quality Regulation 3
Air Pollution Control Division's Small Business Assistance Program
CDPHE Environmental Justice Program
Colorado EnviroScreen Version 1.0 Reports, Guides, and Resources Folder
Report Created: Friday, October 27, 2023
CO EnviroScreen Version 1.0
7/7
CDPHE - Page 4
October 2023
Attachment B. Environmental Justice Summary Supplemental
Information Form
This information was also submitted online using the Environmental Justice Summary
Supplemental Information for Air Quality Regulation 3 Online Submission Form but is provided
here as an overview of the description of the proposed permit application and a summary of
engagement to be conducted by the permit applicant with the surrounding community.
From: Goodie Forms
To: Matthew Petrosky
Subject: Environmental Justice Summary Supplemental Information for Air Quality Regulation 3
Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:07:37 PM
Thanks for filling out Environmental Justice Summary
Supplemental Information for Air Quality Regulation 3
Here's what was received.
I_nvironmental Justice Summary
Sunlemental Information for Air
Quality Re.ulation 3
Air Pollution Control Division
Background: Under Colorado's Air Quality Regulation 3, an Environmental Justice
Summary ("EJ Summary") is required for all applicable permit applications. This EJ
Summary consists of:
1. Environmental Justice Report ("EJ Report" - submitted separately as an email
attachment to cdphe_apcd_ejreports@state.co.us).
2. Environmental Justice Summary Supplemental Information Form (this form).
3. Any additional supporting documentation (such as map images).
You must submit a complete EJ Summary to the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) for
review and approval before submitting your main permit application. You will then receive
a letter of concurrence from the Division's Environmental Justice in Permitting Specialist.
The Environmental Justice Summary, including the Environmental Justice Report, is part
of the permit record. If the main permit application does not include a letter of
concurrence, it may be rejected as incomplete.
Additional information is available on the EJ Report Tool website.
Note: If a modeling determination (form APCD-11 4) is required for this emission source,
you should submit your modeling determination request at the same time you submit the
Environmental Justice Summary by following the instructions on form APCD-114. If you
are unsure whether a modeling determination is required for this emission source, please
consult the Air Pollution Control Division's website.
Note: Small businesses can contact the Air Pollution Control Division's Small Business
Assistance Program for assistance: cdphe_apcd_sbap@state.co.us. For information
about which businesses qualify for assistance as a small business, visit the
program's website.
A copy of your responses will be emailed to you upon form submission.
Email
matthew.petrosky@trinityconsultants.com
Section 1: Background Information (Company/f=acility)
Company name
Biochar Now, LI_C
Facility name (If the facility does not have a name, enter the company name.)
Berthoud Plant
Facility location (street address or coordinates)
19500 Weld County Road 7, Berthoud, CO 80513
Census block group(s) in which the facility is located (this information is
found in the facility's Environmental Justice Report)
081230021032
Which type of air permit will you be applying for?
Initial Title V Permit
O Title V Permit Renewal or Modification
OGeneral Permit
OUnsure
OOther:
Has this facility previously received an official permit or exemption letter from
the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD)?
0
0
Yes
No
Unsure
Section 1: Background Information (Company/Facility)
What is the AIRS ID of this facility? (The AIRS ID number will be listed on the
permit or exemption letter. It is seven or ten digits, usually written "XXX-XXXX"
or "XXX-XXXX-XXX")..F,,
123-9 E2C
What is the permit number or exemption number?
15WE1395
Section 2: Company/Facility Contact Information
Company representative name
Jordan Gaspard
Company representative phone number
(970) 443-4896
Company representative email address
jgaspardbiocharnow.corn
Company representative name #2 (optional)
Company representative phone number #2 (optional)
Company representative email address #2 (optional)
Section 3: Environmental Justice Requirements
The Environmental Justice Report Tool and how-to instructions are available on the Air Pollution Control
Division's website. Please run a report for your facility to answer the questions below.
Based on the Environmental Justice Report generated, is this facility located
in a Disproportionately Impacted (ICI) Community?
0 Yes
No
Section 4: Description of Proposed Permit Application
Will this facility emit any Affected Pollutants? (Check all that apply.)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
Particulate matter ≤2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Xylene
Unsure
Not applicable
JI
Describe the proposed permit application, including the estimated emission
rates (in tons per year) of any and all Affected Pollutants. For each Affected
Pollutant, clearly state whether the estimated emissions would be a net
increase, net decrease, or no change. If estimated emission rates of Affected
Pollutants will remain the same, please still provide those estimates below.
Please provide this information even if your facility is not located in a
Disproportionately Impacted Community. (Note: Please do not send this
information as additional attachments. Provide the information requested as
a short plain language summary below.)
There will be a 0 tpy change for all pollutants.
Is the proposed permit application for a new source or modification to an
existing source that will increase emissions of Affected Pollutants in a
Disproportionately Impacted Community?
0 Yes
No
Describe any mitigation measures and/or changes to the proposed emission
sources that were made based on the results of the facility's Environmental
Justice Report and Summary, if any (such as enhanced monitoring,
recordkeeping, and/or reporting). (Note: If you prefer to send this as an email
attachment to cdphe_apcdejreports@state.co.us, write "Will send via email."
If the facility is not located in a Disproportionately Impacted Community, write
"N/A.")
N/A
Describe any emission reduction strategies that were considered in relation
to the Colorado EnviroScreen indicator data, if any (i.e., information in the
facility's Environmental Justice Report). (Note: If you prefer to send this as an
email attachment to cdphe_apcd_ejreports@state.co.us, write "Will send via
email." If the facility is not located in a Disproportionately Impacted
Community or no such mitigation measures or changes were made, write
"N/A.")
N/A
Describe any changes that were made to the originally -planned source
equipment or operations based on engagement with and assessment of the
Disproportionately Impacted Community, if any. (Note: If you prefer to send
this as an email attachment to cdphe_apcd_ejreports@state.co.us, write "Will
send via email." If the facility is not located in a Disproportionately Impacted
Community or no such changes were made, write "N/A.")
N/A
I acknowledge that, if applicable, I provided complete answers to the
questions above in this section OR I will submit a summary of the information
requested in the questions above to cdphe_apcd_ejreportsOstate.co.us. _r
Yes
Section 5: Public Outreach
For facilities located in Disproportionately Impacted Communities, the Air Pollution Control Division
encourages thoughtful and culturally -sensitive enhanced public outreach by the facility to keep
communities informed and engaged with the latest information. This includes any engagement with
members of the Disproportionately Impacted Community who reside within one mile of the proposed
Affected Construction Source or frequent an Occupied Area within one mile of the proposed Affected
Construction Source, unless the Occupied Area is under the control of the proposed Affected Construction
Source's owner/operator.
You can explore community engagement, outreach, and public participation tips and best practices on
CDPHE's vvebsite.
Did the owner/operator of the facility conduct or plan to conduct enhanced
community outreach to the impacted community prior to submitting the main
permit application?
0 Yes
No
Provide a summanj of community outreach the owner/operator of the facility
conducted, or plans to conduct, if any. (Note: If you prefer to send this as an
email attachment to cdphe_apcd_ejreports®state.co.us, write "Will send via
email." If the facility is not located in a Disproportionately Impacted
Community or no such engagement will be conducted, write "N/A.") ,
N/A
Describe any other considerations intended to facilitate the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of Disproportionately Impacted Community
members, if any. (Note: If you prefer to send this as an email attachment to
cdphe_apcd_ejreports@state.co.us, write "Will send via email." If the facility is
not located in a Disproportionately Impacted Community or no such
considerations have been implemented, write "N/A.")
N/A
I acknowledge that, if applicable, I provided complete answers to the
questions above in this section OR I will submit a summanj of community
outreach the facility conducted, or plans to conduct, to
cdphe_apcd_ejreports®state.co.us. .
Yes
Section 6: Acknowledgements and Supplement Submission
To submit a complete Environmental Justice Summary to the Division, email the following documents to
cdphe_apcd_ejreports@state.co.us beforeoraftersubmitting this onlineform.
Facility's Environmental Justice Report generated by the Environmental Justice Report Tool.
2. If this facility is located in a Disproportionately Impacted (DI) Community, a summary of any
community outreach activities conducted or planned as mentioned in Section 5.
a Any additional supporting documentation (such as aerial or satellite map images).
I acknowledge that I will submit a complete Environmental Justice Summary
to the Air Pollution Control Division prior to submitting the main permit
application.
Yes
I acknowledge that, if applicable, I must also submit a completed Form APCD-
114 prior to submitting the main permit application. (Information on Form
APCMD-114 can be found here).
Yes
I acknowledge that I must submit an aerial or satellite image of the location
of the facility as documentation of any Occupied Areas not within
Owner/Operator control within one mile of the Source, to
cdphe_apcd_ejreports@state.co.us. Instructions on how to submit this image
are available on the Air Pollution Control Division's website.
Yes
Create your own Google Form
Report Abuse
CDPHE - Page 5
October 2023
Attachment C. Aerial Image of the Facility
Office
Office and Processing Generators
Propane Tan
Processing System
14 Operational Emission Stacks
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 1 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Criteria: Action Achieved date is between Jul 1 2020 12:00AM - Sep 30 2020 11:59PM
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 2 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2015-080 IR/MEP Reg 7 violations 031-2126 BAYSWATER EXPL - REG 7 & 0000 REPORTING
8/25/2015 9/1/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
SEP
9/1/2020 79,200
EFV2 9/1/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2019-126 Failure to connect vapor recovery
777 Xtreme Petroleum LLC 8/1/2019
Action Achieved Penalty
CO 8/20/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2019-150 Failure to control emissions
059-0627 STINKER STORES - STINKER #339 9/3/2019
Action Achieved Penalty
COC
9/3/2020 9,450
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2019-152 Failure to control emissions
031-1438 STINKER STORES - STINKER #314 9/3/2019
Action Achieved Penalty
COO 9/3/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2019-161 Failure to provide records, APEN violation
123-0491 R & B SUPERMARKET - GASOLINE & GROCERY 9/13/2019
Action Achieved Penalty
CO 8/20/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2019-192 Failure to control emissions, APEN violation 005-1080 7 -ELEVEN, INC. - NO 21493
11/25/2019 7/1/2020
Action Achieved
Penalty
EFV2 7/1/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2019-193 Failure to control emissions, throughput, emissions, and APEN violations 031-1467 7 -ELEVEN, INC. - NO 13194
11/25/2019 7/1/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/1/2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 3 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-009 Emissions and work practice violations 017-0191 TUMBLEWEED MIDSTREAM - N MAYFIELD C.S.
1/23/2020 8/20/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/20/2020
WL 8/20/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-013 Monitoring and control device requirement violations 103-0291 ENTERPRISE GAS PROC - MEEKER GAS PLANT
2/3/2020 7/2/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-015 Failure to control emissions 031-1445 STINKER STORES - STINKER #342
2/5/2020 10/15/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
COC
9/3/2020 0
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-022 Emissions, throughput, and APEN violations 031-1916 CIRCLE K STORE # 2709842
2/28/2020 9/6/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/6/2020
C O C 8/20/2020 26,325
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-023 Failure to control emissions, APEN violation
005-1274 CIRCLE K STORE # 2709879 2/28/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
C O C 8/24/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-024 APEN violation 001-1302 CIRCLE K STORE # 2709850
2/28/2020 9/6/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/6/2020
C O C 8/20/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
2020-025 APEN violation 001-1304 CIRCLE K STORE # 2709889
Case Opened
2/28/2020
Case Closed
9/6/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 4 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
EFV2 9/6/2020
i
COO 8/20/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-026 Failure to provide records, APEN violation 005-1245 CIRCLE K STORE # 2709898
2/28/2020 9/6/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/6/2020
COO 8/20/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-027 Failure to control emissions, emissions, throughput, and APEN violations 035-0674 CIRCLE K STORE # 2709905 2/28/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
COC C 8/20/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-028 APEN violation 005-0540 CIRCLE K STORE # 2709880
2/28/2020 9/6/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/6/2020
COO 8/20/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-029 Failure to control emissions, APEN, and permitting violations 005-0972 J&S PETRO - DRY CREEK GAS AND SNACK
3/2/2020 9/8/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/8/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
2020-030 Permit and APEN violations 059-2031 KUM & GO, L.C. - #319
Action Achieved Penalty
Case Opened Case Closed
3/13/2020 8/19/2020
EFV2 8/19/2020
COO 8/11/2020 9,275
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-033 Emissions, monitoring, and reporting violations 101-0252 GCC RIO GRANDE - PUEBLO CEMENT PLANT
3/24/2020 7/20/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/20/2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 5 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-036 Testing, monitoring, and work practice violations 013-0003 CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS - LYONS
3/26/2020 8/10/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/10/2020
AS
7/21/2020 42,000
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-038 Emissions, monitoring, work practice and reporting violations 075-0029 STERLING ENERGY INVESTMENTS - YENTER GP
3/26/2020 7/15/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/15/2020
AS
7/6/2020 18,200
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-039 Testing, monitoring, reporting, and work practice violations 081-0350 GREAT DIVIDE DISPOSAL FACILITY
3/27/2020 10/8/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
AS 9/28/2020 3,448
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-041 Emissions, throughput, work practice, monitoring, recordkeeping and 123-9E0F PLATTE RIVER MIDSTREAM -LUCERNE WEST STAT
APEN violations
4/6/2020 7/1/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/1/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-042 APEN and permitting violations
001-1400 KUM & GO, L.C. - STORE #940 4/6/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
COC 8/11/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-043 Failure to control emissions, permit and APEN violations
123-9760 KUM & GO, L.C. - STORE #973 4/6/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
COC 8/11/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-044 Emissions, work practice, monitoring, and APEN violations 123-0057 KMCGEE FT LUPTON/PLATTE VALLEY/LANCASTER
4/15/2020 10/7/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 6 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
AS
9/29/2020 47,425
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-046 Emissions violations 123-9009 DCP OPERATING CO - SULLIVAN C.S.
4/16/2020 7/20/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/20/2020
AS
7/7/2020 10,500
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-048 Recordkeeping, reporting, and APEN violations 117-0017 SUMMIT COUNTY LANDFILL
4/16/2020 7/14/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/14/2020
AS
7/7/2020 5,600
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-070 Emission limit violations, failure to install control device
123-9E99 ROCKY MOUNTAIN MIDSTREAM - FT LUPTON GAS 4/16/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
C O C 7/28/2020 21,000
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-071 Testing and reporting violations 017-0209 TUMBLEWEED MIDSTREAM - LADDER CREEK C.S.
4/16/2020 8/12/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/12/2020
AS
8/5/2020 3,500
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-084 Monitoring and APEN violations 045-1234 CAERUS PICEANCE - J16W/M16W PROD FACILIT
4/21/2020 7/14/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/14/2020
AS
7/10/2020 3,675
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-087 Monitoring, record keeping, and APEN violations
073-0146 NIGHTHAWK PRODUCTION -CRAIG 4-4 4/23/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
COO 9/16/2020 1,925
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 7 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-090 APEN and permitting violations 059-0605 CITAULA BROTHERS 6 - CONVENIENCE PLUS
5/6/2020 7/6/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/6/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-101 Visible emissions from flare - INOV 123-9E20 WHITING OIL & GAS - RAZOR 33 CENTRAL
5/26/2020 8/24/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/24/2020
EFNH N H 8/19/2020
AS
8/24/2020 8,050
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-102 Emissions, throughput, and work practice violations 001-1332 DILLON COS - KING SOOPERS FUEL FAC #081
6/1/2020 7/2/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-108 Failure to control emissions, APEN violation 005-1100 BYERS THRIFT - BYERS SINCLAIR
6/15/2020 8/19/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/19/2020
AS
8/13/2020 3,150
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-121 Work practice,monitoring, recordkeeping, and APEN violations 005-1471 OMNI-X U.S.A .
6/15/2020 8/3/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/3/2020
AS
7/28/2020 5,425
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-122 Emissions and monitoring violations 001-0611 DENVER AUTO AUCTION
6/15/2020 9/16/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/16/2020
EFV4 9/16/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 8 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
2020-123 Emission limit violation - stack test 103-0028 NATURAL SODA LLC
6/15/2020 8/4/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/4/2020
AS
7/29/2020 2,800
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-126 Emission limit violations - stack test
123-9E2C BIOCHAR NOW, LLC - BERTHOUD PLANT 6/15/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
000 8/20/2020 5,250
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-127 Failure to complete test, notify Division of test 123-9C89 BONANZA CREEK - PRONGHORN 24-7 BOOSTER
6/15/2020 10/1/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
AS
9/29/2020 22,750
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-129 Open thief hatch - INOV
123-9A75 K.P. KAUFFMAN - FACILITY #7 6/18/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFNH N H 9/14/2020
NOV 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-131 Emissions and control efficiency requirement violations - stack test 087-0111 STERLING ENERGY - JACKSON LAKE GAS PLANT
6/29/2020 10/1/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 7/13/2020
AS
9/23/2020 35,000
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-132 APEN and permit violations 001-2243 MAVERIK, INC - #549
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020 0
AS
8/10/2020 5,600
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-133 APEN and permitting violations 001-2244 MAVERIK, INC - #495
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 9 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-134 APEN and permitting violations 001-2245 MAVERIK, INC - #540
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-135 APEN and permitting violations 001-2246 MAVERIK, INC - #544
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-136 APEN and permitting violations 005-1753 MAVERIK, INC - #490
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-137 APEN and permitting violations 005-1754 MAVERIK, INC - #525
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-138 APEN and permitting violations 005-1755 MAVERIK, INC - #579
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 10 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-139 APEN violation 029-0115 MAVERIK, INC - #463
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-140 APEN and permitting violations 035-0791 MAVERIK, INC - #479
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
2020-141 APEN violation
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
Action Achieved Penalty
041-2174 MAVERIK, INC - #494
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
2020-142 APEN violation
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
041-2175 MAVERIK, INC - #566
Case Opened Case Closed
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-143 APEN violation 041-2176 MAVERIK, INC - #602
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 11 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-144 APEN and permitting violations 069-0582 MAVERIK, INC - #520
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-145 APEN violation 077-0640 MAVERIK, INC - #482
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-146 APEN violation 077-0641 MAVERIK, INC - #418
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-147 APEN violation 077-0642 MAVERIK, INC - #500
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-148 APEN violation 077-0643 MAVERIK, INC - #400
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 12 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-149 APEN violation 077-0644 MAVERIK, INC - #417
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-150 APEN violation 083-0115 MAVERIK, INC - #497
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-151 APEN and permitting violations 123-A0FD MAVERIK, INC - #609
Action Achieved Penalty
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
2020-152 APEN violation
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
083-0116 MAVERIK, INC - #275
Case Opened Case Closed
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
CA 7/2/2020
AS 8/10/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-153 APEN violation 087-0126 MAVERIK, INC - #480
7/1/2020 9/21/2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 13 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/21/2020
AS 8/10/2020
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-154 APEN, permitting, and control plan requirement violations
123-9DA6 PAWNEE WASTE - PAWNEE WASTE E&P LANDFILL 7/1/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 7/13/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-155 Failure to repair leaks, APEN and permit violations
123-0015 DCP OPERATING CO - SPINDLE GAS PLANT 7/2/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-156 Emissions, reporting, recorkeeping, and testing violations 001-2202 CRESTONE PEAK - BIG SANDY 3-65 36-31 1D
7/2/2020 9/29/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/29/2020
AS
9/29/2020 8,750
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-157 Emissions limit violation -stack test 123-9FDB REP PROCESSING LLC - PIERCE GAS PLANT
7/2/2020 10/26/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-158 Visible emissions, testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
violations
123-9F9C ROCKY MOUNTAIN MIDSTREAM - DISCOVERY MUS 7/2/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 7/2/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-159 Failure to control emissions, self -certify 031-2422 RUDEETAI - SPEER SHELL
7/10/2020 9/22/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 14 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
EFV2 9/22/2020
i
CA 7/13/2020
AS
9/11/2020 3,500
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-160 MACT, emissions, permitting, work practice and APEN violations
123-0107 DCP OPERATING CO - LUCERNE 1 GAS PLANT 7/13/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EF45 7/13/2020
NOV 7/13/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-161 Emission limit violation, APEN and fee payment violations - stack test 001-0559 CONSERVATION SERVICES
7/23/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 7/27/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-162 APEN and permitting violations - self audit immunity 123-A03A MALLARD EXPLORATION - CINNAMON TEAL FED
8/10/2020 8/11/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/11/2020
EFV4 8/11/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-163 Visible emissions, recordkeeping, and work practice violations
005-1712 CRESTONE PEAK - STATE LA PLATA 5-65 8/10/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/11/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-164 Monitoring and recordkeeping violations -self audit immunity 123-9DF7 AKA ENERGY GROUP - SPEER GAS PLANT
8/11/2020 8/13/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 8/13/2020
EFV4 8/13/2020
Case# Case Description
2020-176 Reporting violations
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Action Achieved
Penalty
041-0091 COLORADO SPRINGS UTIL. - CLEAR SPRING RA
Case Opened
8/12/2020
Case Closed
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 15 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
CA 8/13/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-177 Emissions and monitoring violations
123-9010 DCP OPERATING CO - GODFREY BOTTOM C.S. 8/12/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 8/13/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-178 Emission limit violations 123-7168 HIGHPOINT - PETERSON 5-63-30 SWNE
8/12/2020 10/28/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 8/13/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-179 APEN, recordkeeping and failure to provide records violations 005-0279 QUALITY CLEANERS
8/12/2020 10/12/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 8/13/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-180 Emission limit violation - aborted stack test
123-9C84 NOBLE ENERGY - ROHN STATE LD4 ECONODE 8/12/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 8/13/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-181 Odor violation
101-1195 STAYCON - CRAFT CONCENTRATES 8/12/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 8/13/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-182 Emissions, throughput, APEN and permitting violations 123-0090 DCP OPERATING CO - MEWBOURN
9/10/2020 9/16/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EFV2 9/16/2020
WL 9/16/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-183 Emissions, throughput, and work practice violations
123-9 FA E HIGHPOINT OPERATING -CIRCLE B 5-61-27 CS 9/16/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 16 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
CA 9/21/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-184 Emissions, monitoring, and reporting violations
043-0001 HOLCIM (US) INC. PORTLAND PLANT 9/16/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
EF45 9/2/2020
CA 9/17/2020
EF64 9/14/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-186 Emissions and control device violations - stack test
059-1988 COORSTEK, INC. - CENTER FOR ADVANCED MAT 9/17/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 9/21/2020
EFNH N H 8/16/2020
Case# Case Description
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
3
2020-187 Monitoring and work practice violations
123-1351 KERR-MCGEE GATHERING - IONE C.S. 9/17/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
CA 9/18/2020
Case# Case Description
J
AIRS ID Plant/Location
Case Opened Case Closed
2020-193 Emissions, work practice, and reporting violations
059-0409 ARCOSA LWB LLC - LIGHTWEIGHT - BOULDER 10/26/2020
Action Achieved Penalty
INFS 8/14/2020
Case Totals
Open 27
Closed 62
Total 89
Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:20 PM
Colorado Air Compliance Tracking and Inventory System Page 17 of 17
Enforcement Case Summary Report Without Comments
Action/Penalty Summary
Action
Number Penalty
SEP - SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
1 79,200
AS - SETTLEMENT
17 229,373
COC - STATE CONSENT AGREEMENT ISSUED
6 73,225
Total:
24 381,798
Angela Snyder
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jeremy McKay <jmckay@eadefense.org>
Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12:12 PM
Diana Aungst; Angela Snyder
Alexa McKay
USR24-0019
EXHIBIT
D 21 3
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking
links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified.
To the Weld County Planning Commission,
On behalf of Ms. Yarbrough, Environmental and Animal
Defense offers this brief supplemental comment in connection
with the documents it sent via email to the planning commission
on October 6, 2025.
Weld County is a severe nonattainment area under the Clean
Air Act. Biochar Now's other facility in Berthoud, which it
references as support for this project, put in a Title V major
source air pollution operating application under the Clean Air
Act due to current VOC and NOx emissions from the facility.
This is the same type of permit a coal fired powered plant would
require. That facility has also been subject to multiple
enforcement actions by the CDPHE for violations at that facility.
While that other facility has also put in an application for a
synthetic minor source permit, it should be noted that Biochar
Now has proposed one way to reduce its emissions to meet the
criteria for that permit, run fewer of its kilns for fewer hours. This
is because Biochar Now's kilns generate harmful emissions at
predictable rates. To stay under the Title V threshold, Biochar
Now can only run so many kilns for so long.
The Berthoud facility is relevant because the applicant relies
upon it so heavily in its request for this permit. There are no
1
assurances in the project record that indicate the same results
will not occur at this facility as in Berthoud.
There are extensive studies showing the significant harms
caused by these types of pollutants, and Environmental and
Animal Defense has already offered this information into the
record.
Nothing has been offered by the applicant to contradict these
concerns, nor refute the impacts on equine health, or to show
Mrs. Yarbrough's continued ability to conduct her agricultural
practices.
The applicant should offer real data to support its claims and
should have been transparent about its other facility. Instead,
the applicant has tried to obscure the fact that it will generate
harmful emissions by hiding behind an empty sales pitch about
its "patented technologies."
We urge the planning commission to consider these
supplemental documents in combination with our previous
submission.
Sincerely,
Jeremy McKay, Staff Attorney
Environmental and Animal Defense
Get Outlook for iOS
Hello