Tire Plant Fuels Worry for Eastside Family

4Mar2008 Filed under: Eco-friendly business, Economic Development, Erie, Manufacturing Author: Peter Panepento

The proposed tires-to-energy plant on the former International Paper Co. site has emerged as one of the most controversial projects in recent memory.

The thought that this proposed plant would be sited in a dense neighborhood is certainly cause for worry.

And it prompted a new GlobalErie reader, Patricia Merski of Lakeside Drive, to write me a rather pointed note about her concerns.

Here’s what she had to say:

I am writing in response to your article, “SPOUT OFF ABOUT ERIE”, that appeared in the March 2008 issue of Lake Erie LifeStyle. I enjoyed the article and was happy to see someone with a voice cheering us all on!

But, I write to you with a heavy heart Peter, as it is possible Erie will soon be the ‘proud’ location of the world’s largest tire incinerator, which I don’t believe will help our image.

This tire-derived energy plant will be located close to the shore of the lake and more importantly, in the middle of what is now densely populated neighborhoods with churches, schools, other businesses, and community facilities. I am a mother of three teenagers, a cancer-survivor (yes, it was environmental), and an excited business owner of a small publishing company preparing to launch our 2nd children’s book (Understanding Sam and Asperger Syndrome, Skeezel Press). Our home happens to be located about 1.5 miles from the proposed site (previous International Paper location) and for the past year, my husband & I have been quite immersed in researching and opposing this tire incinerator proposal through the efforts of a grass roots group called KEEP (Keep Erie’s Environment Protected). We believe this incinerator will have a long term devastating effect on our health, our family, our environment and our community.

The ’smokestack mentality’ of our local city council members and mayor (who incidentally was MIA during the numerous presentations by scientists, environmentalists, biologists and other specialists on the dangers involved with this technology), coupled with public apathy toward this ‘eastside problem’ has led us to this unfortunate possibility. Air quality standards set forth by the EPA are too low to protect us — and City Council members can make the standards more stringent but for some reason do not think that is a good idea…?

I have tried to keep an open mind about this project — waiting to see what qualified scientists say about its potential environmental impact. If it is safe, as the project’s planners say, then so be it.

But after hearing more and more from those who would be living in its shadow, I think there have to be better options. Is it possible that such a development could happen somewhere else — where it won’t be impacting the quality of life of thousands of people and scores of other businesses?

Erie needs new development, for sure. But that development has to be smart and it must be done in the best interests of the entire community.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

23 Responses to “Tire Plant Fuels Worry for Eastside Family”

Ted in Delmont, PA
March 4th, 2008 at 11:24 am

I understand Patricia’s fears. It is so easy for those of us not near the project to say “what’s the problem?” What confuses me most is why we care so much for the environment of the spotted owls and the caribou and so little for the human environment. I read recently where they found a family of spotted owls nesting in old K-mart sign. Apparently the owl family didn’t appreciate the hundreds of thousands of acres of timber that the lumber companies gave up for them… and at great expense. Maybe we should forget the tires to energy plant and drill for oil in Alaska… at the expense of a few caribou.
Jim
March 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

So let me get this straight, you tried to keep an open mind, waiting for qualified scientists to report on the actual (not perceived) environmental impact. But in the end, you just can’t do it, and in the final analysis, opt to pander to perceived fears before the science is known. (Maybe if you come back to Erie you might consider running to replace Cappy on council. Looks like you might be a fit.)

I am so disappointed. I had hoped that this forum would lead the way away from emotional perceptions carrying the day over objective analysis.
Rob
March 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I have to agree with Jim on this one. The thing that has fasinated me the most about this topic is that people are so quick to take sides on this issue without knowing any facts on the issue. I myself do not know how many and what kinds of pollutants will be, and before that information is made known to the public, how can anyone take a stance on the issue? Because any stance that is taken up to this point is not a well informed one at all.

Maybe the people involved with KEEP are right. On the flip side, maybe this plant will give off as few emissions as a handful of cars. Having lived in Harborcreek my whole life prior to leaving town a few months ago, I definitally have a keen interest as to what goes on with the plant. However, as I have said other times before on this forum regarding this topic, until the facts are made known, I will reserve judgement on whether I think this plant is a good idea or not.
Peter Panepento
March 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

My mind is still open, but I also believe that there is no way that the developers of this project are going to appease the fears of the people and businesses that would exist in its shadow.

At some point, I think we have to consider the opinions and fears of the people who would be affected by this project and take into account the lost property values and potential lost business that would be associated with it.

Because there are no other projects like this elsewhere, perhaps we’re better served testing it in a more remote location and assuaging fears, rather than trying to site it in one of the densest parts of the county.
Dale
March 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

By the time that all the dirty secrets eminating from the chimney are “discovered” and “covered up” (as seems to be standard procedure with government these days) it will be far too late to take sides, as the damage will have been done. In a case like this, where the benefits are few and the drawbacks many, I think everyone has the right and responsibility to make their position known, even if it is viewed by some as a cop-out. Even ‘open minds’ are able to discern faults in a fuzzy logic. I’m with Peter here, only not as open-minded.
Debbie
March 4th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I’m not sure that any developer could ever allay all the fears of the neighboring businesses and residents. Although I think they could go a long way toward helping themselves by posting information on a website (including information from the town meetings which not everyone can make it to). Link to articles discussing the success or failure of similar plans in other areas. Links to environmental data.

There is a phrase “NIMBY” which means Not In My BackYard.

Oftentimes people are ready for growth, but they think it would be better in some other location. That may be the case here (at least in part).

I understand that people are concerned about their property values, but when you buy property in proximity to an area with non-residential zoning don’t you need to keep that in mind?

I know when we bought our home that we had to keep in mind the proximity to the railroad tracks and the flight path for the airport. We knew that the airport was planning a runway extension and that might mean larger and noiser aircraft in the future. Eyes have to be open to those possibilities.

Without turning away development dollars from Erie, is there somewhere else more suitable in the county for this plant?
Dale
March 4th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

So Debbie,
What if (no commercial intended) we convince Rubino and Co. to put the plant elsewhere, say on the old Fenestra property by the airport. Would all the people living in that area be happy to have the problems caused by the plant? Remember this is not just emissions. Let’s not forget traffic tie-ups and ruined streets from the increased truck traffic, and how do we get rid of all the pollution from thousands of cars idling while trains crawl across the streets to reach the plant. Besides, then it wouldn’t be in my back yard.
Joe Erie
March 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Jim,

As a medical doctor specializing in environmental health/epidemiology and scientist with years of air quality experience with the US EPA and private consulting firms involved in power plant permitting, I am more than qualified to take a stand on this issue before the “qualified scientists” of the PA DEP report on it. It absolutely will be cleaner than Hammermill (that wouldn’t be too difficult), but overall, it is simply a major step backwards for Erie; especially for only 60 unskilled jobs. I am more surprised at citizens like you who seem to wholeheartedly support this ridiculous project without understanding the science and possible health effects associated with the plant. Most people may not understand a fluidized bed gasification system and its emissions, but I think they have a stronger reason to be skeptical of the proposed plant, given its nature, toxic feedstock and the developers involved, than you have reason to support it, possessing the same lack of knowledge about this type of industrial facility.

ERE’s proposed facility is not “state-of-the-art”, “green” technology as they would have you believe. There are currently very advanced and truly clean gasification systems which are “closed-loop” systems - they have no hazardous air emissions and need no 300-foot tall smokestack (like ERE’s proposed plant does). However, these systems are not yet practical for the massive amount of tires that Mr. Rubino & Co. plan to import into Erie (that’s where they will make their money… disposal fees).

Everyone interested in this project enough to offer their opinions on it should first inform themselves about the topic. And from what I’ve read and seen, the Erie citizens who oppose the plant have a lot more knowledge about the science behind it than those who support the project.

Just thought I’d post some of my responses again, since the topic continues to be relevant. From Peter’s Feb. 5th post, “Student Journalists Flatten Tire Plant”, in an exchange with Wizo.

If ERE is seeking, and if they would receive, a lower LEED certification, then it really brings into question the legitimacy of the entire LEED program. If a closed-loop, complete pyrolysis system were being used by ERE in their proposed plant, then I would have to agree with the plant’s “green” rhetoric. However, they are not, as that much cleaner tecnology would not be suitable for the massive amount of tires they plan to utilize. Instead, ERE will construct a very tall smokestack to disperse toxic pollutants (albeit at lower levels than many industrial operations). The simple fact that air pollution will increase (even at the low levels claimed) due to the plant’s activity completely negates it from consideration as “green” technology.

I am well aware of the current (and outdated) position of the US EPA on TDF; I have been employed as an air quality research scientist by the EPA and numerous other states’ regulatory agencies. The main problem with your citation of the EPA site in support of ERE’s tire plant, is that there are no air quality parameters currently available to serve as a basis governing emissions from ERE’s proposed plant, as it will be the largest of its kind in the world and completely dedicated to tire incineration. Nothing comparable currently exists. All EPA emissions data on TDF currently available is derived from partial-use TDF plants (cement kilns, hybrid coal power, paper mills). Also, in citing the EPA website entry on TDF, you serve to only counter your own stance on the legitimacy of ERE’s supposed “green” technology being employed. The paragraph specifically states that “waste-to-energy” is last in line in terms of scrap tire use before disposal in landfill; and after reduction, reuse, recycling of scrap tires (true “green” alternatives).

The thing that bothers me most about this whole thing is that ERE is selling this proposed plant as an “alternative energy” provider. On the surface, to most people, this would seem to be perfectly rational. Yet, if one knows the history of the proposed use of scrap tires as fuel for power plants, it is easy to see through ERE’s marketing scheme. It is quite interesting that some of the largest rubber corporations in the world (including Goodyear, Unniroyal, and Firstone) have experimented with this technology over the years, but have always found it to be economically unfeasible; basically, it takes too much energy to run a large-scale fluidized bed gasification system dedicated for tires compared to the amount of energy produced by the process. It just cannot be done yet on a large scale (like that proposed by ERE) to get enough power out considering the power put in to run it. So, it is no surprise that ERE only plans to offer any power generated to other local industries, rather than to the community at large… they simply wouldn’t be able to do it cost effectively! Let’s see… the largest rubber corporations in the world, who have the greatest interest in seeing this technology succeed, have yet not been able to make his work, but “Erie Renewable Energy” has the solution? Come on.

ERE and its investors will make their money through the importation of millions of tires, charging the providers, shippers, etc. fees per pound/ton of scrap tires. The plant will basically serve as a cleaner tire incinerator. Energy production is a completely secondary operation, and an unfeasible one at that.

I’m all for the development of new, clean technologies, especially in Erie, a city that has a legacy of environmental pollution and subsequent characterization as an unhealthy region of the US. However, the main problem with this proposed tire plant is that it is a step backwards for Erie. It is not a clean, “green”, renewable technology. It is potentially still a new hazardous waste polluter in a city that has the opportunity to change its environment and perception throughout the nation. With all of the work being done to improve the region’s image nationally, again, I really see this as a big step backward for Erie.
Joe Erie
March 4th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Here’s another. From Peter’s Feb. 19th post concerning toxic sites in the area.

As a physician with a focus on environmental health and with a scientific background in the environmental consulting industry, this story is not at all shocking to me. We’ve long called the Great Lakes region one of America’s “Cancer Coasts”. The incidences of breast, prostate, and colon cancers in the region are significantly high and indisputably mirror the rise in the presence of chlorinated compounds released into the air and water. The correlation is uncanny.

I’m glad certain organizations are finally getting the news out to the public and it is almost criminal that the CDC has blocked numerous reports over the years.

I wonder if many people who revered Hammermill over the years knew that it was among the largest polluters in the United States for decades; that it put more tons of chlorinated compounds (our prime carcinogens) into the air and water than anywhere else in the eastern US. I also wonder if the citizens of Erie realize that the proposed tire incineration plant will also deposit chlorinated compounds (dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls-PCBs) into our air and water supply. These compounds persist in the environment and are not diluted with dispersion from a smokestack. Granted, the proposed tire plant will produce far less pollution than what Hammermill (or many other industries in the region) did, but do we, as one of the Cancer Capitals of the USA, need any more toxic compounds in our air and water?

I, and many of my colleagues in the epidemiology and environmental health profession, know that we do not. When I told some of my colleagues of the proposed tire plant development back in my hometown of Erie, they just shook their heads and offered a collective “poor Erie”… it’s known as a place that has been taken advantage of by industrial corporations over the years, given its overall low level of local resistance to toxic polluters.
Joanne B.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Erie, Enough is enough; please! This is the 21st Century. Has anyone ever heard of the Green jobs of the future instead of the black jobs of the industrial polluting past?

Please, listen to the qualified people telling the truth: a tire burning plant is unequivocally the worst decision Erie could ever make at this place in time for far too many reasons to list. How and why would anyone ever want to sell their soul for 60, count them, 6-0 jobs?

Peter, BRAVO to you for having the fortitude to question and speak your mind about the ACTUAL environmental hazards this type of plant poses for Erie, our people, our lake and well to the East of it.

If you want to do something with those tires, how about this: don’t burn them, instead, put in place a plant that will grind them up and use them in other ways that won’t pollute and harm others and the environment. Believe me, there are other options other than burning them.
Daria Marnella
March 5th, 2008 at 12:54 am

On another note, the long time C.A. Curtze Company.. a well established, good paying company with alot of employees, have stated they will move their company out of Erie. Can we truly afford to lose good paying jobs from a reputable company to put in 60 basically : grunt : jobs? With the Erie economy fading fast due to job losses, why would we want to take the chance at losing a company such as C.A. Curtze? That seems like a no brainer to me.. but that’s just my thought on the subject. I say let’s keep Curtze Co. here! It’s not being afraid of trying new things, but common sense.. again just my thoughts.
Jim
March 5th, 2008 at 7:21 am

Hey Joe, since you don’t want to produce energy, how about you and your medical pals getting off their butts and doing something to get the cancer trails done in Erie.

Oh wait. We won’t take something handed to us, let alone work for something. I forgot.

Erie is beyond help.
Peter Panepento
March 5th, 2008 at 8:48 am

I don’t think the cancer trial issue is Joe’s fault.

And I think we’d all rather see that type of investment in Erie rather than in a tire-burning plant.
Joanne B.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am

Hey Jim,
If this was your hope:
“I had hoped that this forum would lead the way away from emotional perceptions carrying the day over objective analysis.”

Allow me to remind you that the objective analysis that has been offered to the people and politicians of Erie has already been pushed aside, ignored and stamped upon by the lets-make-a-quick-buck-without-care-for-the-consequences mentality pervasive in the archaic political and economic thinking so prevalent in Erie.

Do you understand that the size and type of facility ERE is posing to build will be the largest TIRE BURNING facility in the WORLD?! And that the studies that have been done currently can’t even begin to predict the FULL negative environmental and health impact it will have?

Allow me to try to put this into perspective for you…
This is 2008; all across the planet studies have shown that the environment is in peril and a bunch of greedy people in Erie want to put in a TIRE BURNING PLANT…let me say that one more time…A TIRE BURNING PLANT up in a City that sits on one of the largest fresh bodies of water in our country…in this day and age…the year 2008. Again, I have to wonder what could possibly make anyone anywhere want a TIRE BURNING PLANT in their back yard. This simply boggles my mind and the minds of thousands of people all across the nation and Canada who have heard of this proposed plant.

Those words; that process should be the farthest things from anyone’s thoughts in this time period in the world’s environmental history, not to mention in Erie’s history.

Come on Jim; let your anger go. 60 jobs are not worth the impact this sham of a business will have on Erie.
Joe Erie
March 5th, 2008 at 11:07 am

Jim,

You’re just talking silly now. Your latest post reads like something one of the idiotic radio talking heads might say… stating something completely false, then immediately changing the subject with a soundbite and signing off. Come on, I’m completely open-minded to having an informed discussion of the issue at at hand.

Where have I stated that I don’t want to produce energy? Clean energy production in Erie would be wonderful. However, as I’ve stated numerous times, this proposed plant’s primary purpose is not to produce energy! The developers would have the uneducated believe just that though. That’s their whole sales pitch!

Again, the largest rubber companies in the world (Goodyear, Firestone, and Uniroyal among them) have not been able to produce enough energy with large scale fluidized bed gasification systems fueled by scrap tires to offset the large amount of energy required to run the process to make it an economically-feasible operation. Energy production is small and secondary; the investors from Massachusetts and Connecticut will make their profit from the importation of thousands of tons of scrap tires while hazardous pollution is increased in the region. Remember, ERE’s proposed incinerator, while cleaner than many industries, is still classified as a major Hazardous Air Polluter. Erie doesn’t need this for 60 unskilled jobs. It is simply an unecessary project that will line the pockets of out-of-town investors and a liability for the region overall. Projects like this are counterproductive, backward thinking. It would only serve to discourage the types of industry we truly want to attract to Erie… like biomedical, skilled enginneering and technology, etc.

As for me and my “medical pals getting off our butts” and getting the cancer trials sited in Erie… I have no affiliation with the medical community in Erie. I do not live or practice in Erie. However, I grew up there, am a frequent visitor, and still care for the city a great deal. I’m not sure of the specific reasons why Erie was not selected at this time, but I have a suspicion that squabbling, disorganization, and lack of communication within the medical establishment there has much to do with it. If Hamot, St. Vincent, and LECOM were able to share resources more effciently and develop an inclusive plan, there is no reason why Erie wouldn’t be able to offer suitable facilities and staff for 2nd round clinical trials. Also, the local business community and government officials should have been more active all along in getting the trials done in Erie. Trials done with this procedure can lead to others in the future. Clincal trials take years and spinoff industries often develop in major medical centers to serve the clinical research operations. I’m disappointed that Erie was not selected, but not surprised.
James A
March 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am

It might be worth it for 600 jobs. Not for 60.

I do have a question, though - if tire recycling is so much easier and less controversial, why is ERE not going into recycling rather than tire-to-energy? Is the profit margin that much bigger? I’d think they’d be trying to maximize their return, too.
Wizo
March 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

they get paid to dispose of the tires in addition to the power
Joe Erie
March 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

James A.,

As I’ve stated numerous times, including twice in this thread of replies, ERE will make large profits from the disposal costs associated with the importation of thousands of tons of tires. That’s where they will make their money, not from energy production for reasons stated above. Try reading the posts. As for tire recycling, it is the preferred option over tire derived fuel and landfilling, but it is not easier. They would still collect millions in disposal fees and would likely shred the scrap tires in the same way if they were operating a recycling facility. However, they would then have to figure out what to do with their thousands upon thousands of tons of shredded tires… they’d need to find steady buyers, sign contracts, deal with transportation costs and regulations, etc. The market for recycled tire products is still developing as well. It brings a whole new set of circumstances into the business and it is just easier (more profit driven) to make the initial investment in the plant, profit off of the disposal charges, and burn the tires.

In related news, it’s good to hear that city council passed the proposal to study an air quality ordinance. A step in the right direction.
James A
March 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

I wasn’t confused about whether or not they were making money off of it, just why it would be more profitable to burn than to recycle. I was assuming a recycling business could charge the same transportation/importation fees as a tire burning plant.

Are rubber and recycled rubber essentially interchangeable? If they are, it seems to me the market would be more like oil or grain. They’re products that everybody uses, and consumers can switch suppliers at will. It doesn’t matter where it’s from, a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil, and a bushel of grain is a bushel of grain. If recycled rubber is interchangeable, the barriers to entry might be more in people’s heads than in the real world. If not, that also needs to be acknowledged if the choice is between the two. (The recycling plant would probably still be vastly preferable, but that would need to be said).
Joe Erie
March 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

I’m not sure of the differences between rubber and recycled rubber in terms of potential usage/buyers, but I see what you’re saying and agree with your line of thinking. A tire-recycling plant would be vastly preferable for a number of reasons and would be a truly “renewable” operation.
anonymous
March 9th, 2008 at 8:53 am

Lake Erie Biofuels (green energy) near the proposed tire plant received grant money from the State claiming they were going to create jobs in Erie. Where are all the jobs Erie Management group claimed they were going to genertate? The US biodiesel industry is in the toilet due to lack of customers and high costs of feedstocks. Many biodiesel plants are shutting down across the US because they cannot make any money. Here is a clear example of Erie’s economic development finest not doing their homework and we the taxpayers have to pay for their lack of due diligence and good business sense. What guarntees will we get that the tire plant will generate jobs? I heard that federal investigations are looking into compamies claiming to create jobs, taking grant money and not producing the stated results.
Randy
April 29th, 2008 at 6:04 am

Please educate yourself. The ERE permit application has been available since Dec. 2007.

If you do not want to go to the library you can read it here. All the facts that the PA DEP has to make its decision on are in it. Because no place or no one has tried to incinerate 1,000 tons of tires per day there is no data ERE can point to.

Instead they use “conservative assumptions”. Yes, that statement is their permit. In their application it states that yes they will be “a major source of hazardous air pollution (HAP)”.

Please tell me what part of that statement gives you the fuzzy feeling that this is good for your children, the environment and future generations? As far as this being a viable business it is not. Now that it cost $1.00 per mile to fuel a tractor trailer transporting tires long distance is not economical. Even if all come by rail they still need trucked from the tire pile to a rail yard. That would take 200+ tractor trailer loads (approximately 500 tires per trailer) every day for the next 40-50 years to operate this plant.

This is just the same type of scam the juice man pulled. He had no apples and ERE has no tires. I guess the GEICD board feels that even bad attention and publicity is better than none. We can be the laughed at by the rest of the country and that must be okay with most of our elected officials. What CEO would consider locating a business in Erie if the quality of life is not important to the area? 60 jobs burning tires is a joke.

Fortunately more and more people that research the issue stop laughing.
J. Skinner
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm

TIRE FIRE DANGERS
Whatever emmisions this tire plant does release will be distributed over a residential neighborhood, including at least 6 schools within a 1-mile radius. When the IP site was in operation, I often could not open my windows or go outside because of the fumes from the plant and I live about 1 1/2 miles from it. There are literally hundreds of homes even closer. Most of us live here because we cannot afford to move anywhere else. The children are the ones we need to think about.

For all the reassurances ERE likes to give about how “clean” their incineration process is, within the plant, my greater concern is the enormous danger posed by open-air tire fires. With the huge numbers of tires that would have to be brought to the site and stored until they were incinerated, this is a very real and very serious risk.

Here is an excerpt from the EPA site: http://www.epa.gov/garbage/tires/fires.htm

“Tire fires, although infrequent, are serious situations that are difficult to extinguish and expensive to clean-up. Tire fires often become major hazardous incidents affecting entire communities—frequently requiring neighborhood evacuations and long, drawn-out fire extinguishing operations. These fires threaten pollution of the air, soil, and water. EPA, states, municipalities, and private companies have spent millions of dollars cleaning up tire fires across the country.
Air pollution is also produced by tire fires. Air emissions may include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, styrene, phenols, and butadiene. For more information on toxic air pollutants generated by tire fires, go to EPA’s Toxics Air Pollution Web site….

In 1983, a 7-million tire fire in Rhinehart, Virginia issued a plume of smoke 3,000 feet high and nearly 50 miles long with air pollution emissions deposited in three states. The fire burned for nine months, polluting nearby water sources with lead and arsenic. The tire storage facility where the fire occurred is now being cleaned-up as a Superfund site. http://www.epa.gov/garbage/tires/fires.htm”
Another report that tells more about the Rhinehart, Virginia fire:
Emissions from Open Tire Fires—report presented by the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, October 2000 http://www.p2pays.org/ref/11/10504/html/intro/openfire.htm
Even a relatively minor fire could force residents from their homes for week or months.

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

About 'Outside Erie'

Peter Panepento After more than six years working as a journalist in Erie, I'm now the web editor for the Chronicle of Philanthropy in Washington, D.C., and the publisher of GlobalErie.com. I still maintain close ties to Erie - a community that I care about deeply. I hope this Web site can help inspire a better future for Erie.

Outside Erie