Got a letter from Caroline Markworth today. She's the lady with the Ohio EPA that has conducted the last couple of public hearings on Baard's permit applications down at the high school. The letter is a "Citizen Advisory" and so, I thought I would share it with you.
The letter is advising us that the Ohio EPA has issued a water quality certification to Ohio River Clean Fuels, LLC. This is the first of three permits applied for by Baard for the proposed coal-to-liquid-fuel plant. Details can be found on the OEPA web site.
The OEPA is continuing to work on the draft wastewater discharge permit which they held a hearing for May 27 at the high school. The permit for air emissions is still under review and a public hearing for that application has not yet been scheduled.
The only comment addressed by the OEPA on the water quality permit hearing from this past April was the objection of some coal mining methods. As stated on here previously their answer to that was that mining companies are regulated separately. They have to apply for their own separate EPA permits. That issue is not part of Baard's proposal.
Baard hasn't been much in the news since that last public hearing in May. There was a letter to the editor in the MJ by an EL KSU professor and a fellow by the name of Ron Springer has been quoted speaking up at the last Port Authority meeting and again at a County Commisioners meeting. Never having heard of either of those folks I Googled both.
Seems Dr. Burns is primarily a biology teacher and the KSU site stated her main study interest concerns round worms. In her letter she made a plea that the locals - meaning you & me - insist that public health be given "priority over promised jobs and economic nirvanna". I read the letter and Matt Stewart advises us that "she is a credible scientist whose opinions should be taken seriously". Matt also told us on ORL that Dr. Burns told him she got her concerns from reading Baard's EPA applications. I won't question her credibility but when I read the letter I got the impression that her thoughts expressed in that letter was more from the heart than scientific research. I didn't save the letter but I do not recall any research studies being quoted. Maybe she was dummying it down so we "locals" could understand what she was saying. She also failed to mention any of the innovative technologies that is incorporated into Baard's plans.
Now Mr. Springer is a different story. If he is the same Ron Springer that is a retired steam fitter that showed up in my research I would have to question his credibility. I don't begrudge him for his concerns. It is everyone's right to speak up at public meetings to express their concerns. If he is the same elderly gentleman that Google found he seems to concern himself with things that he considers the EPA should be looking into. If he is the same guy he is on record speaking up at the Commissioner's meeting twice before on possible pollution problems.
At the Port Authority meeting he was quoted as saying "the EPA does not stop pollution" and with that I have to disagree. Every manufacturing plant in this country is regulated by the EPA. I don't care what type it is. Each and everyone of them must adhere to EPA standards that are in place to protect the health and well being of all whether it's plant, animal or human. If someone is caught not being compliant then the EPA has the power and authority to shut them down and stop all operations right now. Baard will be no different and will be strictly regulated from the first shovel of dirt moved to full time operation. Believe me they will be closely watched and they are well aware of that. From all that's been written about them I don't think the scrutiny will be a problem for them.
What concerns me more at the present time is the business end of it. Long time Sierra Club member Nachy Kanfer commented on ORL that "coal prices have doubled since June 2007". That was confirmed by a headline article in yesterday's Post-Gazette. The story was about how the price of coal is going to force electric rates up. What caught my attention was that the price of coal was $138/ton last week. A year ago it was $55/ton and today's cost is four times what it was in the year 2000.
Let's hope that the price of coal will not prevent making it a cost effective venture for the good folks at Baard. The price of oil is dropping. Maybe coal will follow suit. The thought of losing this ray of hope would be devastating not only to the region's economic outlook but to the very spirit of hope for all of us. A lot of people from the nation's capitol, Columbus, the county and locally have put a lot of effort into making this proposal a reality. That's not even mentioning what Baard has put on the line so far. I hope my worries are just silly nervousness.
ole nib
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Nib:
Can you elaborate on what her concerns about round worms are? Does she want to protect them or what?
It's very obvious you've thought a lot about the proposed Baard plant and what it can do for Wellsville and the surrounding town. I really respect that.
I do think, especially since you quote me :), that it's appropriate to explain that Sierra Club does oppose the Baard plant. Just as there are good reasons to support it, there are good reasons to oppose it. I'm not trying to troll your blog here. But if you like, please feel more than welcome to shoot me an email or phone call and we can discuss it.
Thanks again for the thoughtful tone of this post.
Nachy Kanfer
Sierra Club National Coal Campaign - Ohio
nachy.kanfer@sierraclub.org
(614) 461-0734
Nib, please tell Miss Kanfer we here in the Ville don't need her negative comments about the $4,000,000,000 plant being built in the heart of coal country, Wellsville, Ohio. Bring on the dozers, and bring the jobs with em....
Nib--
A short while ago I was certain this plant would be built, but I'm less certain now. We do know that Baard doesn't care about Wellsville, the environment, you, Mr. Kanfer, Dr. Burns, the Baard supporter, or any of us. This is about money ... period. If the investors stand to make a lot of money, then the plant will be built. If not, then it won't.
Remember Cogentrix? The energy market is extremely volatile and fickle. The longer it takes to get this operation up and running, the less likely it will be built.
Opinion - Sorry to get back to you so slowly. Had to back track on what I checked out.
You would have to ask Dr. Burns what her specific interest in round worms is. I certainly can not speak for her.
When I Googled her the KSU cite said research interest was caenorhabditis elagans and neurotransmission in those critters. Not to make light of her research studies I had no idea what caenorhabditis elagans were. So I went to Wikipedia and learned they were round worms about 1mm in length and they have been found to be useful in DNA studies and such. They were called "model organisms". Not being educated in any of that I'm hesitant to say much more. I don't want to sound like a know-it-all on something I know little about and I don't want to mislead anyone on the subject. What I do know is that the developing research into DNA is extremely interesting and although it's been going on for thirty some years we're learning more and more about human development that came from studies of such tiny creatures. Thirty years ain't nothing when it comes to such research.
The academic community doesn't care much for Wikipedia but it works for me. I heard some professors in institutes of higher education give automatic F's for using Wikipedia for a reference source.
Getting back to the subject of the article I found Dr. Burn's letter published in the MJ. Google has it and it's entitled "No Nirvanna". It wasn't there a few days ago.
ole nib
Nachy: I'm honored that you responded to this post and thank you for your invitation to discuss the cons on the proposed Baard plant. We're well aware that the Sierra Club is opposed to this plant. George Peya of your Salt Springs Group has made that abundantly clear at the last two public hearings. I admire your dedication and devotion. You, too, have obviously put a lot of thought into this.
However, I think most of your concerns as to the use of coal is really with the mining industry and their methods. The C-
T-L plant will be using massive amounts of coal but they are not the ones mining it. You have to hold the companies responsible that do the mining to supply the coal. That is not part of the proposed plant. I may be naive but I do think Baard will be considerate of the environment in their chose of coal vendors. Their plans have shown they will be taking extreme measures to protect and preserve our environment.
That being said, just yesterday I read an article in one of our local newspapers that Consol Engergy along with Synthesis Energy Systems announced plans to build another C-T-L plant in WV. This is the second such plant in WV being proposed. Let's hope those people are willing to be as responsible as Baard says they are going to be.
ole nib
Matt: Of course it's about money. That's a given. That's the most basic goal of anyone doing any kind of business anywhere. I have no problem with that. If the plant gets built and Baard makes money some of that will trickle into the area economy. It will be better than Bush's Stimulus package for the area. It won't be the answer to all our economic woes but it would be a real boost.
How can you say "we all know that Baard doesn't care..."? I have to disagree with you on that. My opinion is not as cynical as you're sounding.
The location picked for that plant is an ideal location. It's in the heart of coal country. It's near an ever improving river port facility and our highway system through the area is one of the best.
In their plans submitted for their permits Baard has shown they are willing to go the extra mile to protect and preserve our area. With the higher than required smoke stacks and all their screens and filters it's sounds like any pollution will be minimal on that part.
They plan to use river water in the proposed system and then treat it before it's discharged back into the river. An engineer at one of the hearings remarked that the water will probably be of better quality going back into the river then when it was taken out. Great strides have been made cleaning up the river over the last few decades but it still isn't the pristine quality that some think it is.
Green house gases is one of the by-products of the process. I heard that CO2 is not regulated by the EPA but Baard has plans to sequester something like 80% of it. It's an extra step that Baard wasn't required to consider. There will probably be more CO2 emitted from motor vehicles on Route 7 than what will come from the ORCF plant.
The fuel from this process has been rated to be just as clean or cleaner that unleaded gasoline. The process is new to this country but has been around for years in Europe. The Nazis used it for their fuel demands in WWII. Bet they weren't as concerned about the environment as Baard is showing to be.
Our dependence on oil products is well known. It's something that won't go away for generations. With all the alternative energy proposals it may wean somewhat in years to come but that will still take some time. As a country we have to absolutely lessen our needs from foreign sources. The reasons are many. The proposed Baard plan is one step in achieving that goal.
I think Baard will be a good neighbor and if it comes to be it will certainly be good for our region. We're fortunate that they picked this location and they have shown they are willing to work with us. I just hope and pray that it's still a go.
ole nib
Post a Comment