|
QUESTION:Pity the poor regulatory agency that has 2 efficiency-oriented,
profit-driven entities with whom to deal evenhandedly, when animosity
sometimes prevails between those entities!
Blaming regulators certainly offers a handy way out (of addressing their
animosity, anyhow)...
ANSWER: Ain't that the truth, Never been a problem that someone could blame the
regulators for. Strangely, the media will cite rules and regulations that
don't exist, hurdles that are not there, and problems that don't exist.
But, shoot fire, we don't have a budget for spin doctors to get the "truth"
out there.
Actually Charlie, in the new hazardous waste combustor MACT, there was a
great program snuck in that allows anyone to burn what would be considered
RCRA solid and liquid waste, as long as they can prove that the waste is
cleaner than the fuel that its displacing. As #2 and coal are really dirty,
it can be pretty easy to prove. A food/pharmaceutics/misc precursor
facility claims they are saving seven million a year buring in their boiler
what used to be incinerated. They are also burning waste from at least four
other sites. Not only is it about the same as #2 fuel oil, its mainly
replacing their coal fired riley boiler.
You might be able to do the same for gaseous "waste", I've not look into
it. Gaseous streams were exempted from RCRA and are not hazardous waste.
It is not easy to do a two company project, but it can be done. At least,
I can do it.
|
|
|
|
