A developer proposing to build a controversial manure-to-fuel plant in Delaware cited his work with a similar Alabama plant as evidence in his application for the project here. But the Alabama plant operated only “intermittently” and eventually was shut down and dismantled. Phillip C. Badger, former longtime manager oftheU.S.Department of Energy’s Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program, acknowledged in an interview the status of the Alabama plant when asked about a summary of Renewable Oil International LLC’s record that’s noted in an application for exemption from the state’s incinerator ban. Although Renewable Oil’s application said the company “presently has a plant in AL capable of processing 2.5 dry tons per day of feedstock,” Badger said that facility operated “several years ago.”.........[DNREC] Agency officials said this week that the Alabama plant’s status was not relevant to the state’s review of the technology or likelihood of compliance with the incinerator ban.I am told that the definition of solid waste in the Delaware Code includes waste gases. Clearly, from reading the statements below, the definition of solid waste is being ignored.
Renewable Oil has proposed a 10ton-per-day unit that would process poultry litter and wood chips on a poultry farm and manure brokerage site east of Dagsboro, along with a smaller research version in Seaford. RenewOil Energy has proposed a unit to convert shredded tires and plastic into fuel at a site near New Castle. Alan Muller, who directs the Port Penn-based group Green Delaware, said all the projects should be barred. “All three of the applications for incinerator status decisions are full of obviously incorrect, contradictory and incomplete information, yet the DNREC is processing the applications as if the information were correct,” said Muller, who campaigned for the state’s incinerator ban in 1997.
John Kowalko sent this along ~
John KowalkoHi Representative.
I had a chat with DNREC technical people yesterday. Their argument that the proposal is not an incinerator goes like this: They admit the tires are a "solid waste" but claim the "non-condensible" gases created by cooking the tires are not a solid waste, therefore "not an incinerator." This argument is bullshit. Any combustion of solids or liquids involves the creation of non-condensible gases (hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, etc). (The follow-up email I got is below.) But DNREC seems pretty dug into this position, at least for the moment.
They also pointed out that original versions of the legislation from 2000 enumerated "gasification," "pyrolysis" and so on as constituting incineration. This is true. I put that language in specifically to cover this sort of scheme, but it did not make it into the bill as enacted. They used this to argue that the General Assembly did not intend to cover these terms. In any case, that language from 13 years ago is still around and could be resurrected.
Best,
Alan MullerFrom: "Ferree, Melissa A. (DNREC)" <melissa.ferree@state.de.us
To: "'alan@greendel.org'" <alan@greendel.org
Subject: Federal Register Language - Gases Regulated as Solid Wastes
Alan,
As you requested yesterday, below is a summary of EPA preamble language with regard to gases being regulated as solid wastes.
In 1984,the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published a proposed rule (49 FR 5314; February 10, 1984) in which it discusses the regulation of gases as solid wastes. The USEPA took the position that if a gas could be condensed, it met the definition of solid waste and if the gas could not be condensed and was not containerized, it was not a solid waste. EPA stated in the proposed rule:
“The exclusion from RCRA of ‘gaseous materials’ that are not contained (section 1004(28)), in the Agency’s view, applies only to true gases, namely those which are not capable of being condensed and which remain gases at standard temperature and pressure…”
The USEPA received adverse comments in response to its 1984 Federal Register discussion and issued a final rule in 1989 (54 FR 50973; December 11, 1989). In its 1989 discussion, the USEPA states:
“In its proposal, the Agency explained that it believed that the exclusion from RCRA of gaseous materials that are not contained applied only to ‘true gases’ – namely, those which are not capable of being condensed and which remain gaseous at standard temperature and pressure. Our concern was that a plant could evade regulation by designing a process to keep the process emissions in a gaseous state.”
The USEPA goes on to say:
“Upon reconsideration of this issue (with the benefit of the comments received on the proposed rulemaking), EPA now believes our authority to identify or list a waste as hazardous waste under RCRA is limited to containerized or condensed gases [i.e., section 1004(27) of RCRA excludes all other gases from the definition of solid wastes and thus cannot be considered hazardous wastes.]”
Thanks,
Melissa
Melissa Ferree
Engineer IIIFrom: Bentz, David (LegHall) on behalf of Kowalko, John (LegHall)
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 12:13 PM
To: O'Mara, Collin P. (DNREC)
Cc: Markell, Jack (Governor); Johnson, JJ (LegHall); Mirzakhalili, Ali (DNREC)
Subject: Incinerator CommentRead it here: John Kowalko On RenewOil Energy's DNREC "Incinerator" Permit Application
0 comments:
Post a Comment