From: Vrooman Gary L
Sent: Fri Dec 07 10:54:30 2012
To: FULLER Brian
Subject: RE: Pyrolysis Legislation and CT Rules
Importance: Normal
Hi Brian,
I don't think I've seen this before.
It seems to me that all this would do is move pyrolysis of waste plastics that are otherwise not recyclable to make oil from fifth priority to third priority under the hierarchy. The proposal doesn't seem to do anything else.
I'm not sure why that is even necessary, as by definition these plastics aren't otherwise economically recyclable and presumably they are not compostable, so their use for pyrolysis would not be discouraged by something higher up in the hierarchy anyway. Right? Maybe the magic is in the word "economically." Is the point to allow pyrolysis of plastics that are more difficult to recycle?
Gary
Gary Vrooman
Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Oregon Department of Justice
-----Original Message-----
From: FULLER Brian [mailto:FULLER.Brian@deq.state.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 1:00 PM
To: Vrooman Gary L
Subject: Pyrolysis Legislation and CT Rules
Hi Gary,
Apologies if we've asked you this before. We just found out about the above legislative concept. I think that we've previously concluded that if this law were to be enacted (as well as our proposed CT rules), that plastic pyrolysis would still be subject to the Conversion Technology rules. Your thoughts?
Thanks
Brian Fuller
Manager - Hazardous and Solid Waste Programs
Oregon DEQ - Western Region
541-687-7327 - Office
541-501-3349 - Mobile
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system.
************************************