From: Joe Miller
Sent: Tue Jan 22 12:05:35 2013
To: NUTTALL Christie; BARROWS Bob; FULLER Brian; PICKERELL Loretta; SPENDELOW Peter H
Subject: Automatic reply went into spam quarantine
Importance: Normal
Apologies to all! For some reason the automatic reply didn't make it through the spam filter, and wound up in my spam quarantine. Since I've never found an automatic reply in there before, it didn't initially occur to me to look there. Such is life!
Joe
From: Joe Miller <jmiller@saintmarys.edu>
To: Comment-CTFacilities@deq.state.or.us
Cc: NUTTALL Christie <NUTTALL.Christie@deq.state.or.us>, BARROWS Bob <BARROWS.Bob@deq.state.or.us>, FULLER Brian <FULLER.Brian@deq.state.or.us>, PICKERELL Loretta <PICKERELL.Loretta@deq.state.or.us>, SPENDELOW Peter H <SPENDELOW.Peter@deq.state.or.us>
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:12:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Comments on Proposed Conversion Technology Rules
Dear Christie and All,
I submitted the comments below at 10:20 AM. Since the Proposed Rulemaking Announcement* "How to comment" guidelines indicate that "If you don’t receive an automatic response or the email exceeds 10 MB, please contact Christie Nuttall at 503-229-6832, or toll-free in Oregon at 1-800-452-4011 6832," I expected an automatic response. Since I received no automatic response, I called 503-229-6832, and received a message that the number was no longer in operation or had been disconnected. So I tried 1-800-452-4011 6832, and received a voice message from Christie that she would be out of the office on Jan. 22, and that if I needed assistance, dial the operator. So I did and gave-up after about 15 rings and no response.
* http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/rulemaking/2012/ConvTech/CTPN.pdf
I would appreciate an email confirming that my 10:20 AM, Jan. 22 comments have been received. Thanks.
Joe Miller
# # #
From: Joe Miller <jmiller@saintmarys.edu>
To: Comment-CTFacilities@deq.state.or.us
Cc: BARROWS Bob <BARROWS.Bob@deq.state.or.us>, FULLER Brian <FULLER.Brian@deq.state.or.us>, PICKERELL Loretta <PICKERELL.Loretta@deq.state.or.us>, SPENDELOW Peter H <SPENDELOW.Peter@deq.state.or.us>
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:20:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Comments on Proposed Conversion Technology Rules
January 22, 2013
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW Sixth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Dear ODEQ Personnel and Colleagues,
The following comments are in response to ODEQ's 12/14/12 announcement of a public hearing and comment period on its proposals for Conversion Technology Rulemaking [1]. Certain aspects of the proposed rules for anaerobic digestion will be addressed first, followed by broader comments on the proposed rulemaking for pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc and similarly described technologies.
1. Questions and Recommendations About Type 4 Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion:
In my judgement, "specified risk material (SRM) from bovine animal mortality and animal by-products from slaughter that pose a risk to the environment and public health from exposure to prions that can cause Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE)" ought to be excluded and prohibited from composting processes and anaerobic digestion conversion facilities. Rather than being excluded, however, such specified risk material is specifically defined as a Type 4 feedstock under (43) (d) in the Division 93 Solid Waste 340-093-0030 Definitions [2]:
(43) "Feedstock" means organic and other solid wastes used in a composting process to produce composted material, or used in a conversion technology facility to produce other products. For composting, four types of feedstocks are defined:
(d) Type 4 feedstocks include specified risk material (SRM) from bovine animal mortality and animal by-products from slaughter that pose a risk to the environment and public health from exposure to prions that can cause Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE). This includes the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia from cattle 30 months of age and older and the distal ileum of the small intestine and the tonsils from all cattle. It also includes whole cattle from which the SRM has not been removed, cattle that are not able to walk, and cattle with symptoms that might indicate BSE disease. Type 4 feedstocks also include digestate that was derived from any quantity of type 4 feedstocks. [p. 9 of 53]
On July 31, as a member of the Conversion Technology Rulemaking Advisory Committee [3], I submitted a set of comments recommending that all specified risk material including blood from downer cows and cows exhibiting behavioral symptoms of BSE be prohibited from being processed in anaerobic digesters, and that Type 4 feedstocks be deleted under definition (43). The text and references for those comments can be found at [4].
Included within the reasons for my recommendations were the following:
-- numerous shortcomings have been identified in the the USDA's policies and procedures for detecting Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE) in U.S. cattle.
-- several routes have been identified in which BSE prions, if present in an animal's nervous tissue, may be spread to and contaminate the animal's muscle meat during slaughter. Two ways such contamination may occur, for example, are during carcass splitting operations and captive bolt stunning.
-- recent research has demonstrated that BSE prions can be found in the autonomic nervous system of infected cattle before they are detectable in the central nervous system. More specifically, BSE prions can be found in the sympathetic autonomic nervous system of infected cattle at 16 months post-infection, and in the parasympathetic ANS system at 20 months post-infection.
-- research has shown that the blood of infected cattle contains BSE prions, although at lesser concentrations than the specified risk material from infected animals.
-- several researchers have described how the current practice of weaning dairy calves on the blood and fat of dead cattle provides a potential route for the transmission of BSE.
All of the above demonstrate the inadequacies in the definition of specified risk material proposed as Type 4 feedstocks in (43)(d), and also the ill-wisdom of proposing that specified risk material be defined as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
Some have argued that the biogas value of specified risk material should be recovered through anaerobic digestion, and that the liquid or solid digestate or compost from such processing should then go into a landfill rather than the environment to minimize the transmission of BSE prions. How can we be certain, however, that anaerobic digesters that are used to process specified risk material won't be left with some level of BSE prion contamination, and that this contamination will not then be spread to future digestate or compost created in the digester?
The potential environmental and health risks created by the above uncertainty, as well as the possibility of undermining the public's trust in the value and use of digestate and compost are just too great. All specified risk material including blood from downer cows and cows exhibiting behavioral symptoms of BSE be prohibited from being processed in anaerobic digesters, and Type 4 feedstocks should be deleted under definition (43).
2. Questions and Recommendations for Rulemaking for Pyrolysis, Gasification, Plasma Arc And Other Similarly Described Technologies:
In his November, 2011 "Briefing Paper" on conversion technologies, ODEQ's Bob Barrows notes that "pyrolysis and gasification technology has not progressed into commercial production to the extent of anaerobic digestion," ... and that "in the US, these technologies have been slower to progress beyond bench scale to commercial production, with only a few promising projects progressing in California and Oregon." [5, p.2]
Given the above, as a member of the Conversion Technology Rulemaking Advisory Committee I was perplexed throughout the process about why DEQ was developing permitting rules for technologies that have no commercial operating or emissions record in the US (pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc), and why, in addition, it was doing so within the same proposed conversion technology rulemaking as commercially viable technologies with demonstrated operating and emissions records (e.g., anaerobic
digestion).
Even more to the point, I was perplexed with why DEQ was developing and proposing rules for technologies (pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc) that not only have no demonstrably acceptable commercial operations or emissions record, but which
in some cases have also already been associated with exaggerated and false claims, excessive emissions, operational failures, and a million dollar Oregon pollution clean-up (the failed RMAC tire pyrolysis plant in Troutdale). References documenting all of the preceding were and are included within my 6/1/12 Comments on Conversion Technology Rulemaking to ODEQ professionals and the Conversion Technology Rulemaking Advisory Committee [6].
My concern then and now is that by creating rules for commercially unproven and perhaps polluting technologies, ODEQ is implicitly and falsely implying to citizens, communities, legislators, and investors that such rules are based on ample and scientifically acceptable evidence that the technologies can be operated safely, reliably, and within "permitted" levels of emissions. Such evidence doesn't exist.
Relevant to the above, ODEQ's "Briefing Paper" on conversion technologies notes that the California Integrated Waste Management Board's 2007 "New and Emerging Conversion Technologies" report indicates that "limited data is available to adequately assess the impacts of dioxins, furans, and other hazardous air pollutants." [5, p.4] The same "Briefing Paper" also notes that the Tellus Institute's 2008 "Assessment of Materials Management Options..." for Massachusetts indicates that because "no operating conversion technology facilities exist in the U.S. for municipal solid waste ... the environmental performance findings in the Tellus study are based largely on modeling and/or vendor claims as opposed to actual operating data." [5, p.5]
The same reliance on "modeling and/or vendor claims as opposed to actual operating data" exists in the American Chemistry Council's 2011 "Conversion Technology: A Complement to Recycling" report [7]. The report promotes plastic-to-fuel (PTF) conversion technologies, and appears on DEQ's Conversion Technology Rulemaking webpage [8]. Page 4 of the report indicates that all findings and information in the report were "gathered during interviews of plastic-to-fuel technology manufacturers, users of PTF technology, industry experts and solid waste managers." Similarly, page 24 indicates that all information in Appendix B was provided by technology manufacturers.
In my opinion, technologies are best evaluated by examining real-world operating data and experience, as opposed to just modeling and vendor claims. One wonders why -- especially during this period when the public needs reliable information to comment -- ODEQ's Conversion Technology Rulemaking webpage [8] features reports such as the American Chemistry Council's 2011 "Conversion Technology: A Complement to Recycling" report [7] -- a report based upon "modeling and/or vendor claims as opposed to actual operating data" -- but excludes real-world reports about exaggerated and false claims, excessive emissions, operational failures, or the million dollar pollution clean-up at the failed pyrolysis plant in Troutdale. As indicated above, references documenting all of the preceding are available at {6]. Such real-world information should have been available to the public on the same ODEQ webpage as the American Chemistry Council's 2011 "Conversion Technology: A Complement to Recycling" report.
I'm certainly not anti-technology, but certainly am pro-precaution when precaution (in the scientific usage of the term) is
warranted -- and it's very warranted with pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc, and similarly described technologies. I'm also pro-labeling and disclosure of experimental technologies as experimental, and for creating regulatory rules that require initial demonstration projects for such technologies and enhanced collection and recording of operational and emissions data during these demonstration projects. DEQ fee structures during these projects should be set to reflect the increased utilization of staff and resources for project related demands and analysis that are incurred.
In my judgement, all sectors -- citizens, communities, ecosystems, governments, businesses, investors -- would have been better served if ODEQ had embraced the above philosophy more completely in its proposed rules. The proposed rules are certainly to be applauded, however, for clarifying and more precisely defining the types (and in some cases percentages) of materials that can and cannot be processed in pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc and related facilities, and for increasing the accountability and transparency of the reporting from such facilities.
Thanks, in advance, for your consideration of my comments and recommendations.
Sincerely,
Joseph Miller PhD
1030 SW Jefferson St., Apt. 534
Portland, Oregon 97201
Member, Environmental Health Working Group, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
Former Member, Board of Directors, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
Member (representing Oregon PSR), Oregon DEQ Conversion Technology Rulemaking Advisory Committee
--
[1] Proposed Rulemaking Announcement: Conversion Technology Rulemaking 12/14/12
http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/rulemaking/2012/ConvTech/CTPN.pdf
[2] Proposed Rulemaking Changes For Various Divisions, Including Division 93
http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/rulemaking/2012/ConvTech/CTDiv64RuleChanges.pdf
[3] Conversion Technology Rulemaking: Advisory Committee Membership - Oregon DEQ
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/conversiontechnologymembers.htm
[4] Conversion Technology Rulemaking Advisory Committee - 2012 | Written comments by Joe Miller, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, to DEQ Staff on issues related to proposed Type 4 composting feedstock and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) July 31, 2012
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/convtechnology/CTRulemaking120816JoeMillerComments.pdf
[5] Briefing Paper: What are “Conversion Technologies”? - Bob Barrows - Oregon DEQ 11/2/11
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/2050vision/BriefingPaperConversionTechnologies.pdf
[6] Conversion Technology Rulemaking Advisory Committee - 2012 | Written comments on Conversion Technology Rulemaking by Joe Miller, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, to DEQ Staff June 1, 2012
[7] American Chemistry Council April 2011 Report. Conversion Technology: A Complement to Recycling. Prepared by Kim Holmes/4R Sustainability Inc.
http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Plastics-to-Oil
[8] Conversion Technology Rulemaking - Oregon DEQ
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/conversiontechnology.htm