Erie Housing Authority Opposes Tire Plant

2Jul2008 Filed under: Eco-friendly business, Economic Development, Erie Renewable Energy, Erie, Pa. Author: Peter Panepento

The Erie Housing Authority played host to a news conference today to call attention to its opposition to the proposed tires-to-energy plant.

You can read the organization’s press release for yourselves, but I’ll pull out two quotes from Erie Housing Authority Executive Director John Horan to give a sense of how strongly the organization opposes the project — and why.

“The promise of 60 jobs does not begin to mitigate the health hazards this plant will inflict on our community, especially on those low-income residents of the East Side who have few options when it comes to affordable housing,” he said. “These are the people we are here to serve and protect.”

“Whether the plant meets the City’s zoning requirements or the DEP air quality standards is not our issue here, said Horan. “Our issue is whether another major polluter should be permitted in a neighborhood that has a high concentration of low income and minority residents and is already host to three major polluters.”

This is the latest in a series of groups that have come out against this project. As this plan has moved forward, has your mind changed at all on whether this is a smart idea for Erie? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Tags: Erie Housing Authority, tires-to-energy plant

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.

42 Responses to “Erie Housing Authority Opposes Tire Plant”

Rob
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I have always maintained no opinion about this project, especially concerning the environmental side of it. There is no data available yet that say how much pollution the plant is expected to emit. It could emit as much or more pollution than the Erie Coke plant that just got slapped with a $6.1 million fine, or it could emit less pollution than an average household.

Until there is some official data, organizations, groups and people are lining up to grandstand and voice their opposition to the plant, without having any data to back themselves up. Once there is official data, it will become pretty apparent in a short time whether or not this project will ever get off the ground.
Julio C. Reyes
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Peter,

It is quite obvious than Rob did not even bother to review the Erie Housing Authority statement because in his post he claims there is not data available at this time. But in the interest of educating myself I was wondering if you could get a copy of the document Mr. Horan is mentioning in his statement.

“Horan said the document from the developer “is about as damning a document as you would want to read,” listing as it does, the plant as a polluter that will spew carcinogens and heavy metal toxins into the air. “If the public read what is in this document, we would not be having this discussion now,” Horan said. “The situation would be way different.”

What if you post the monster’s application in this forum for everybody to read it.

In regards to the Erie Housing Authority position. They of course are making previsions in case the monster is built and then people start getting sick. We are talking about a big chunk of money for liability. Of course the Feds and the State will have to pitch in to address (settle) the Law suits because the monster is being built with their participation, support and money.

Please install my nuclear plant and stop fooling around for crying out loud. Far more money and less risk.
Mike
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm

I was skeptical of this at first, and I’ve slowly started to warm to the idea of a tire burning plant in Erie.

I do question putting a tire burning plant next to the lake and in a residential area. I know the residents are none to happy about it,and they don’t want to have to move. A tire plant would never fly in an area like Wolf Road. It creates the image that the city doesn’t care about the people who live in the lower income neighborhoods.

Don’t get me wrong, Erie needs all the business that it can get. I just feel like this is the wrong location for the plant.
Rob
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Not to dispute what you say Julio, but I would certainly find it odd that the Erie Housing Authority would be the organization to disseminate this information, considering the high profile this situation has within the Erie community. I would think the media would be all over this information long before the EHA announced their position, or certainly someone on the internet would have provided this information, and it would have appeared here, before the EHA came out with their statement.

Granted, I try to keep up with the news that comes out of Erie on a daily basis, I do miss a day or two here and there. But if there was a government report on this situation, I am sure that information would have been in the hands of everyone, and been all over the news for several days on end, and should the information have been really really bad, the plant would be a dead issue by now.

However, it seems to me that the plant still has some kind of legs, which leads me to maintain my position that the full situation has yet to see the light of day, and which is why I continue to maintain my stance of not having a for or against position of the plant.

I do think there are better things that could be done with millions of tires other than just burn them, but until the government comes out with their report, I will continue to remain neutral on the issue.
Peter Panepento
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Thanks for the comments so far. I think this is a debate that will rage on — and I’m happy to provide whatever new information comes my way.

I’m also looking to get access to the report that was mentioned in the EHA release. As soon as I can get it, I’ll post.
Julio C. Reyes
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Rob,

I agree with you that this is definitively odd but at least it seems that Mr. Horan and the EHA are really trying to engage the Feds taking advantage of the executive order 12898 mentioned in their news release.

Interestingly enough the date in the news release says June 2, 2008 I guess it is a typo, the news release should have said July 2, 2008 but you never know maybe because nobody was really reacting for a month they decided to call the TV cameras and conference.

Being around Erie for some time now it seems to me that this is going to get really fun like a cheap reality show in TV. I am afraid that we might get some people either retired from public office or in forced vacations after the Feds start getting involved.

I will encourage everybody to cool down go back to the drawing board and start changing the plans to build my nuclear plant. Everybody will be living happily ever after.
MGR
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm

I believe Title V permits require some sort of public notice and hearing before ever being issued so I think all documents will become available at some point in this process. Still, all the protest and opposition will be about as effective as war protests - Zero effect on the situation, but good for selling newspapers. I can’t figure it out, we aren’t a city of hippies so why waste the time?

If there is one thing we do better in Erie than anybody else, its shady backroom dealing. Therefore, given many of the high profile people getting mixed up in this issue, why are they signing silly notes and holding press conferences to say that they don’t like this plant, oppose its construction, etc. Why is it that no one has taken the Erie approach and struck some type of deal on the down low with the developers to change the location? With all this “change” momentum in Erie, let’s not forget what we do well when necessary, people.
Rob
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 am

Well said Julio and MGR. I guess at this point it just remains to be seen what happens…
Jim
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 am

Given the hysteria surrounding this proposal, I often wonder why anyone would ever opt to attempt investment in the City of Erie, where we never have time to wait for the facts before jumping to a conclusion. Horan’s statement, is accepted as fact, with no back up
John E. Horan
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 am

To Julio and Jim: To my knowledge, the DEP has not made the Tires-to-energy application available on its Web site, and there are very few hard copies available. However, you can access it here.

Read it.

Unfortunately this document has not been disseminated by the media, so our citizens are not aware of its contents. The developer’s own document is my backup.
Rob
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 am

Jim…that is the exact point I have been trying to make for awhile now and is why I continue to remain on the fence about this issue.
Jake
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am

I think all you need to know about Mr. Horan’s statement and his bias is the fact that he sites an oposition group’s website…how open minded was he in taking the stance? did he consult with plant representatives at all?
Also…how much pollution does the GE plant across the street from Mr. Horan’s taxpayer funded fiefdom emit into the air/lake? Has he bothered to investigate? should we shut down GE and Erie’s economy at the same time.
I’d sooner trust the DEP than Mr. Horan’s verdict on this facility. Interesting that so many of the vocal opponents to the facilty are living off the government teat for their paycheck.
Heavy D
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 am

What is the housing authority’s position on the Salmonella outbreak? What is their opinion on the ice found by NASA on Mars? They aren’t being paid to do this kind of commenting. How about if PENNDOT complains about the housing authority?

How much electricity does the housing authority need? Maybe they get it from Unicorn tears and teddy bear smiles….
Julio C. Reyes
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am

John E. Horan,

Thank you very much for providing us with the link to see the documentation. I will definitively do some reading to educate myself. I have been an opponent to build the monster in the Lake because the effect it might have in the water. In one of my original post against the Tire Burning Plant I mentioned that people that believe that the Tire Burning Plant will not cause a big harm around Erie still believe in spontaneous generation.

In fact to be really silly about the pollution effect the way I see it:

I want to say that all that people that reject the notion of acid rain and heavy metals pollution in the whole region and thinking that the pollution will only effect the lower East side of Erie remind me of the people that go to a swimming pool, taking a leak (piss in the pool) in one side of the pool and then moving to the other side of the pool and swimming and drinking the water not realizing that yes, water and urine moves within the whole swimming pool.

In a serious note, I sincerely believe that a nuclear Plant in the lake is the way to go. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts to stop the monster from being built. If we have to engage the Feds even better maybe they are the only ones that could help us to clean little town and stop the non sense.
Tom
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am

John Horan should be more concerned with the drugs and crime that permeates his little fiefdom than with an energy plant to be built in an existing industrial area.
If Mr. Horan is so concerned he should concentrate on issues with in his control, but that entails responsibility for outcomes.
Murder, rape, assault and robbery are far greater realities for housing authority residents than any abstract risk posed by the energy plant.
When your residents are safe from crimes committed by your residents, then we can talk about the risks posed by air quality.
Peter Panepento
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am

I see nothing wrong with the Housing Authority speaking up for the people it serves. Lord knows, there are few other entities in Erie that are speaking up for those who live in poverty. Regardless of which side of this issue you are on, I would think you would grant that folks have the right to express their opinions.

If any significant groups come out in favor of this plan, I will offer them the venue as well.
Publius
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 am

Some of these comments are misguided, but the sad thing is, many of these folks are asking exactly the same kind of questions of Mr. Horan that we would have expected of a watchdog news media years ago. The press has abrogated its responsibility to be a watchdog, and that’s why we have blogs. And that’s why it’s important to pay attention to them — people now go to them, rather than to the newspaper, for news analysis. The good thing is, this debate has resulted in making the developer’s application more available to the public on a blog like Peter’s, as opposed to just being on an opposition site. Horan’s history of public service is sufficient answer to those who question his motives. Take a look at public housing in Erie now, as compared to what it was before he became director. (By the way, crime rates in public housing are among the lowest in the city.) Now, if only the Erie Times-News would just give fair coverage to this whole issue. The newspaper today published only a nine-inch story on the bottom of Page 4B regarding the Authority’s tire plant stance. Well, newspaper editors, congratulations, you are publishing your own obsolescence. Or, perhaps, acknowledging your obligation to Greg Rubino
Matt
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Does anyone know what the procedure is for getting rid of John Horan at the Housing Authority? How does that work exactly? Because it seems as though John has had the job there for a gazillion years. I have never believed that any authority head is entitled to a “lifetime appointment” so to speak. But that’s what we appear to have with so many of these people. It’s as though John Horan has his own little kingdom at the Housing Authority.

I mean, come on, is being named the head of an authority equivalent to being named to the Supreme Court? Do these authority heads serve for “life”? Because that sure is how it seems.
Julio C. Reyes
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm

John E. Horan,

I want to thank you one more time for providing the application documentation to build the Tire Burning Plant. I will print it on paper and do some heavy duty reading. I only took a glance at it and I already love it. Sometimes real life writings are better than fiction. Therefore I am putting aside the latest novel book I am reading and instead I will read the Tire Burning Plant’s application in detail.

So far, you were right in your statements about if people would have read the application nobody would be arguing in favor of building that Tire Burning Plant.

It is interesting to see that according to the DEP Model response the Tire Burning Plant specifications did not appear to be finalized at the time the company making the application created their pollution model for approval. It is also very interesting to read in the application statements like “Uncertain if Carbon (activated) will be needed”, “Estimated not yet decided”. “particular matter uncertainty”, “Catalytic Oxidation – not possible from a technological perspective, 95% pollution reduction in million of Tires, Ash disposal plans not finalized yet, and so on and so and so on.

Finally talking about water, they do plan to indeed use my lake water to mitigate some of the pollution. According to the Feds guidelines it seems that the pool size (for pollution purposes) in my prior post is estimated to be a circle covering 300 Square Miles.

Anyway, I will finalize my reading and then I will comment in more detail.

So far, I love it. Some of the formulas for elements and substances brought me back to my Chemistry classes in Middle School. I love it.
Jim
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm

I read the application previously, and found nothing indicating that the plant would be doing anything that exceeded allowable standards. It is the job of the DEP to determine if that is an accurate portrayal or not. Hysteria in advance of an objective review and determination by those responsible, strictly for the purposes of circumventing the process, out of fear it would be approved, is irrational but typical of Erie.

There are those who for whatever reason believe no standard is applicable. Unfortunately, some of these same people were the ones voicing opposition to wind power, in Ripley New York, to protect birds on Gull Point. The fact that any energy production proposal will meet with immediate opposition is exactly why we are facing the energy prices that we are.

Whether we are talking traditional energy production, or alternatives and renewables, the opposition is always the same. As such, it has no credibility with me.

As an aside, I am tired of those dependent upon public tax dollars, my tax dollars, constant opposition to proposals aimed at increasing the tax base, employment opportunities, and revenue streams.
Julio C. Reyes
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Jim,

If you read the application then you will accept that according to those printed papers the Plant design and model they used is not complete and not finalized. In fact some of the machines and processes are not even completely designed yet either.

A simple yes or no will do the trick for me.
Julio C. Reyes
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Jim,

Also just to make it clear. I am against building the monster Tire Burning Plant but I am all in favor of building a Nuclear Plant or any wind farm in the same location so your point is incorrect to say the least.

Or maybe you are in the same group as Pat Howard according to this letter to the editor printed in the paper today.
MGR
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Since no one with an opinion on this project including myself seems to have any grasp on how much pollution this plant will produce relative to anything (standards, other facilities, etc.), here is an interesting report on large power plant polluters and the ratios of pollutants to MWH produced. Basically the tire plant scores well on ratios except sulfur dioxide, and by gross volume, the pollution level and MWH produced is far lower than what power plants produce. If you want to do any of your own math on the criteria pollutants, remember to multiply tons by 2000 to find the lbs/MWH ratio.

http://www.dirtykilowatts.org/Dirty_Kilowatts2007.pdf
Julio C. Reyes
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm

MGR,

I am afraid that I will have to respond to your post. While I agree that sulfur is a big polluter and major contributor to acid rain while at the same time is associated with the Devil and Hell according to different methodologies and religious around the world.

The real danger is in the heavy metals (not necessary rock music) getting into the Lake.
I seem to remember you and I had a similar conversation about water pollution somewhere else. I even pointed a link to Erin Brockovich and Pacific Gas litigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich

My point again is if the monster is ever built someone better start saving money for the Law suits down the road. Again within the 300 square miles circle not just the poor people in the Lower East side.
MGR
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Julio,

We did discuss water pollution which may well be the bigger problem, but I haven’t found any reports to benchmark that stat yet. If I find one, I will post it as well.
Heavy D
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm

seems like most of the posters are worried because the plan doesn’t have specifics about the technology. Maybe we should go with the proven technology of nuclear power?
Julio C. Reyes
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm

MGR,

That will be great if you find something. Everybody should know that water will be the most precious resource in the very near future. It seems to me that the people wanting to build the Tire Plant and their fans are just looking at the nonsense of air pollution and totally ignore the biggest threat.

I need to make another joke here to try to convey my point.

The Tire Plant supporters look to me like the guy that go to McDonalds in a regular basis, order a really big Mac which they already know is criminal (because its content, fat, calories, and everything else) and to compensate they order a 64oz Diet soft drink.

They know at the end it would not make a difference junk food is junk food regardless but they convince themselves they are doing the right thing and everything will be okay by drinking diet sodas.
Julio C. Reyes
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Heavy D,

Of course I recommend building a Nuclear Plant. It is far less dangerous than a Tire Burning Plant. More money, better jobs, proven technology (how many nuclear submarines and nuclear destroyers we have in our fleet) no direct water (Lake) pollution possibilities at all.

In fact radiation is removed by taking showers. I know that for some “local” public officials taking a shower is almost lethal but C’est La Vie.

Seriously, talking about calculated risk and return on investment a Nuclear Plant is by far a much better deal that the infamous Tire Burning Plant based on chemical reactions.
john morris
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm

It’s very ironic but after years of delaying nuclear power plants on safety grounds, we are headed for desperate binge of construction, which might result in poorly built plants. As it is, i think there’s now a huge backlog that probably exeeds the supply of trained experts.
Randy
July 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am

When the 365 page emissions permit as made public on Dec. 6, 07 the PA DEP was formally asked to make it available on line. The answer was it was “not feasible”. The reason it was not put on line by the DEP is because the tire plant people did not want it on line. Remember when the application was handed in it was accompanied by a check for $37,000.00. I think we all know that when you hand someone a check they are working for you. The tire plant did not want the application on line. They don’t want scientists from anywhere in the world to easily access it. That is why KEEP made the effort to put it on line. KEEP found out it was feasible to make it available to everyone with internet access. Since there are DEP all over the PA looking at this wouldn’t it have made sense for them to put it on line so they did not have to waste time making dozens of copies and mailing them around?
Please read the application. See Section 6.3. At the bottom of the first page it asks, “Is your facility a source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)?” Then look at Section 3, page 8 and you can see some of the levels of pollution. Particulate PM-10 equals 230 tons a year. The technology exists that PM-10 is now PM-1. This means there are 1,260 pounds of particles coming out the stack every 24 hours. These particles are the unidentified pollution. It is just “stuff”. There are more than 80 different chemicals thata can be used in making tires and more are being implemented. Do you know what a micron is? Have you ever seen a micron sized particle? It would take 70 micron size particles to make up the diameter of a human hair. No filters exist to trap 1 micron size particles. And by the way your nose cannot filter them out as it can larger particles. One micron particles are absorbed into the food chain. It falls on the vegetation that cows graze on. It falls on the crops that get harvested and then fed to animals. Please someone do the math and tell us how many 1 micron size particles are released everyday if there are 1,260 pounds worth. That’s everyday for the next 40 - 50 years. On that same page in Table 3-2 the first pollutant is Hg. Do you know what Hg stands for? It is mercury. If you know what the safe level for mercury exposure is please tell all of us. Those that want to compare this plant with other industries of today in the area are way off base. GE has spent millions to reduce their pollution. GE used to burn coal for their power and they no longer do that. See Section 6.2 page 2 where it reads 7,000 tons of TDF per week or 365,000 tons per year. At 1,000 tons per day the number of tires needed (govt uses 20 pounds per waste tire) is 100,000 every day. See page 4 of the same section and at the bottom it points out that the bottom ash generated per day is 32 tons and the fly ash is 90 tons. It will take nearly 10 trucks per day to haul 122 tons of ash per day. Now do you think any local cement block manufacturer can use 122 tons per day? In fact the local cement block plant I talked to uses zero ash today. The Erie Waste Water Treatment plant pays to have their ash hauled to an out of state landfill. See Section 6.2 page 4 where it lists Anhydrous Ammonia. Do you know how deadly Anhydrous Ammonia is? Would you want your children at the Boys and Girls Club just 250 feet away from a 19,500 gallon tank of the stuff? Or a block away in grade school? Would the parents who send their children to Walnut Creek School be okay with the ammonia?
Are you okay with evaporating over 1,000,000 gallons of water a day out the cooling towers? In the Appendix E on about page 7 you can see where the evaporation rate is 801 gallons per minute. Where does that moisture go during humid days or during rain and snow days. Will it help the neighborhood to be exposed to this amount of moisture? Proponents of his monument to global warming will tell you its all safe because they are using BACT (best available current technology). What is safe about that? Would you have survived an open heart transplant in 1950 using BACT? If you think the DEP is the protector of your environment then you are sadly placing your trust in a failed government bureaucracy. The DEP failed to control the Coke Plant even after fining them 2 years ago and after having someone on site for the past year and a half. The Coke plant is operating the same as they have for years. Nothing has changed and until they announce a 50-100 million dollar upgrade to the plant nothing will. The DEP will make their decision base on the 365 page document. If you are waiting for more information from the govt you will be waiting forever. If there are 6 million tires in piles in PA and that will run the plant for 60 days where are the rest going to come from? Locally the used tires from the tire stores go to shredders in Buffalo or Youngstown. Would you rather have the tires recycled or burned? Sure there is some amount of tires mixed in with other fuels in cement kilns. Very limited usage due to the fact the ash can only be used as a small percentage of the cement. PA currently generates more electricity that we use. PA sends the excess via the grid to other states. All people including those of low income that are residents of subsidized housing deserve clean air to breath. Do you not agree that is a basic human right in America? Show me an employer who does not care about the air their employee’s breath and that’s company does not care about their health care costs. What employer who is not a major source of hazardous air pollution would consider this tire plant a reason to come to Erie? Are you content to take what Minnesota rejected two years ago? Erie deserves leaders. Ones that would not allow an out of state company (Caletta) to come in and destroy our quality of air and water. Have you wondered why we are not competing to have the tire plant here? Please list the states that are begging for 60 jobs from a tire plant, (major source of hazardous pollution) Is it because we are seen as vulnerable and our leaders weak? The oppenents that I know of are not against good businesses, just new hazardous polluters that are not needed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Randy
July 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am

I hear people ask if the tire plant is cleaner than IP was. In the year 2000 IP emitted 191 tons of particulate matter. The tire plant will emit 230 tons just from the CFB boilers the tires are burned in and another 6 tons from the cooling towers. Burning coal emits more total emissions but burning tires emit more deadly emissions due to the PAH they produce when burned.
Julio C. Reyes
July 4th, 2008 at 11:10 am

Randy,

You are way too technical in your last post for me at this time. I will definitively read (I already printed it) the 365 pages report in very detail. However, I already agree with you that something does not look right in that report.

As I said before I only took a glance and from my point of view the report is way too incomplete but I also noticed that there are some numbers that do not make any sense.

Silly example is on Section 9 Demographic Analysis according with the report on pages 12 the “whites only” population living within 0-3 miles from the IP site has higher household income than the rest of the “whites only” in the City. That statement alone should make the whites in the West Side really upset I always heard they are the wealthy ones. Coincidentally, the minorities in that area should feel offended because they were not included. Or maybe like somebody else already suggested they were not counted because they were expected to move out or die anyway.

My common sense already tells me that if they are already “cooking the numbers” about whites, blacks, purple, brown, gray, wherever, I am almost certain they will be playing with the numbers about microns and pollutants as well to be sure they pass the inspection.

In a serious note, I will read the report in very detail and I will comment in this forum all possible errors, discrepancies and other issues I find.

Also, the are two letters in that report directly sent to Joe Sinnott and Mark Divecchio requesting their official response to this project within 30 days of the application and I have never heard any official response. I was wondering if they ever offered one and we could get a copy of those if they exist.

At least Mr. Horan and his board had taken an open position. It will be nice to know what is the official position IN THIS FORUM from all our elected officials around little town. I know, I know, politicians say one thing and then do another thing put at least an official written response becomes part of their historical record and if nothing else provides citizen like me the opportunity to laugh when having a drink with friends BSing about Little Town and its idiosyncrasies.
Peter Panepento
July 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am

Some excellent analysis here so far. I hope others take time to read this report and supply some context. It is important that people get the facts on this plan before a decision is made — and if we can get some folks who know what they are talking about to provide some additional context, it will benefit the community.
Julio C. Reyes
July 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Peter,

As promised I will review the application and provide some facts from a common sense perspective. From my own life experiences I am always looking from the best possible alternatives and options for the benefit of all.

Reading, traveling and BSing with people is what I enjoy the most.

So, here we go.

I wonder if the Tire Derived Fuel technology used to generate electricity in the US – In Plain English “Shredding and Burning Used Tires augmented with chemical reactions in an attempt to reduce pollution” - is so marvelous and proven why it represents only 0.26% of the industry. Be aware that this technology is combined in the chart with other stuff like solid waste, sulfur, batteries, chemicals, and miscellaneous so the real number should even be lower. While the nuclear plants technology represents 19.45% this is very close to Natural Gas (19.84%).

The Tire Derived Fuel technology is listed under Other Energy Sources (8)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html

From my point of view the Tires Shredding method is more like a Used Tires disposal method rather than an effective and safe way to generate electricity.

To whoever is building the Tire Burning Plant – A Nuclear Plant is the way to go; it will make you more money with safer technology just look at the numbers in the chart. Check your consulting company maybe they only know how to burn tires and you will be better off talking to somebody else.
MGR
July 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am

For the KEEP folks out there who have been doing their homework, all of the technical specs in the world won’t mean anything to anybody on the fence unless there is a benchmark for comparison. The particulate matter spec from IP in 2000 is a good start, but a skeptic would say that people with an agenda choose the one stat that makes their case and ignore the others. Can someone get a full apples to apples emissions report from IP and maybe Erie Coke so we can see how it stacks up in each criteria pollutant for air and water?

In the end, protests are an unfocused waste of energy that never stop anything, especially projects that comply with the law. Therefore, I hope this lower east side environmental movement realizes that they would have better odds by selecting their best representatives to privately negotiate with the developers. Such a meeting may reveal why this location is really that attractive when one with the same proximity to water, rail, and a power substation is located in rural Girard where most heavier pollution projects would locate without raising many eyebrows. My guess is that there is some unseen motive behind this location that could be replicated for a price and maybe some swindling in a more rural area of the county.
Heavy D
July 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am

Julio,

I totally agree that a Nuclear Plant would be the way to go in so many ways. I had an uncle that worked at Niagara Mohawk’s nuclear plant near Rochester. The jobs were high paying union jobs by the hundreds. The power is reliable and proven and there’s much more of it. Too bad every one’s afraid of it. One thing’s for sure if we want a growing economy we’ll need more energy to run it.
Julio C. Reyes
July 5th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

MGR,

Again you are missing the point.

You said:

“In the end, protests are an unfocused waste of energy that never stop anything, especially projects that comply with the law.”

Just because something might appear legal or because lawyers and “experts” make it pass as legal that does not mean that it is ethical or that it is the greatest business idea to the contrary it might be the stupidest idea and a losing money proposition in the long haul.

In fact, if I am the developers and I am putting my money on the line. I will already be reviewing like crazy the charts I provided in these posts to identify and find out that indeed Pennsylvania already exports a lot of electrical power and it is the second nuclear electric power generator in the nation.

Randy, in his post said:

“PA currently generates more electricity that we use. PA sends the excess via the grid to other states”

MGR, Please be aware that before I agree with anybody I usually try to review the information when I do not know the facts. I want to say it appears he is correct. Pennsylvania sells a lot of electricity to other States up to 50% of the coal-output.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=PA

The additional issue here according with the Map is that indeed Erie looks like an empty landfill without any generating electrical power capabilities. No wonder why they thought it is a good idea to burn the Tires in an urban landfill.

I will also use this information to ask my consultants what the hell, what kind of advice are you giving us. Burning Tires, damaging the environment and people and pissing off everybody for millions when I could go nuclear and make billions more. You have to be kidding me.

Just read the papers outside Erie and find out why big corporations like GE (have your heard about the Hudson river lately? I am sure most of the Fox’s fanatics already know what I am talking about) all over the world are against heavy water and air pollution. In the long haul it does not make any economic sense anymore.

And just to be clear, one more time the chemical pollution is not for the Lower East Side of Erie only the pool size for anybody taking a leak is 300 square miles circle including Girard.

As everybody could see I am having a blast just looking at all this nonsense and educating myself.
MGR
July 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Technically whether the state of Pennsylvania has a surplus of electricity has little bearing on the developer’s bottom line, the compensation for energy produced remains the same regardless of where it is used. Nationally, we have an electricity deficit looming because energy consumption is rising at around 17%/yr. and the means to produce it is only rising at 4-5%/yr. I did a significant amount of research on energy issues because I had 2 clients last year involved in power generation equipment. This plant may have a flawed business plan or any other number of issues, but once the developers have reached their current stage, they have reviewed all of this information beforehand and at this point have probably spent over $1MM in pre-work. Developers don’t reach the point of investing that type of capital and then suddenly “see the light” because some activist group holds continuous protests or files frivolous lawsuits.

Also with regards to the water pollution, I haven’t come up with a good benchmark to evaluate their water pollution levels. If it ‘affects’ a 300 square mile area, how much does it affect it? Added to aggregate pollution of other water polluters here, what level of pollution does the bay have? What do other bodies of water with similar pollution levels look like?

If the KEEP folks could objectively provide these types of benchmark comparisions providing full apples to apples benchmarks of the environmental impact, maybe there is a slim chance that the city council might enact some type of over the top water pollution limit beyond the EPA regs, which I am not even sure federal law would permit.
Julio C. Reyes
July 6th, 2008 at 10:23 am

MGR,

You said:

“This plant may have a flawed business plan or any other number of issues” .

I would say instead this plant definitively has a flawed business plan and serious issues affecting the project.

Before I comment more I want to make it very clear I do not belong to KEEP and I am not an activist. I do post here just to have fun; to enrich and challenge my intellect. At the end, if the monster “Tire Burning Plant” is built while critical for a lot of people to me it really does not matter I do not live in the Little Town area in permanent basis. In fact, building the monster could give my wife the excuse to convince me to finally abandon Little Town once and for all.

Now, going back to this issue from the business perspective.

Regardless how much money you had put (spent) in a project in a given point the first rule to remain solvent in a private business environment is to know when to terminate or stop a project once you understand that your return on investment is not what you were expecting. Companies start and terminate new projects in a regular basis. So your 1MM investment comment is completely irrelevant. Indeed for a projected 235 million business plan is nothing. In fact your comment strongly supports my argument that the developers better start checking their consultant’s credentials and experience.

Continue playing with % if indeed we have a 17% electric production deficit. Who in the right mind might think that building a monster to generate 90Megawatts of energy will help to solve that problem. 90MW represent .02% of the total US yearly production volume and 0.14% of the 17% deficit you mentioned. So, I guess the real business objective might be just to Burn the Tires rather than generate electricity. Your numbers just reconfirm that a nuclear plant is the way to go if indeed the developers want to be in the electrical power generation business.

Let’s say that Burning Tires is their primary business objective then they should have a plan to dispose of the ashes. According to the application THEY DO NOT have a plan to dispose of the ashes. Now, the disposal of the ashes is a major problem. In case you do not know to this day people find piles of ashes inside caves where our ancestors were burning natural materials. Ashes do not easily decay. They are the result of a chemical reaction. I have to assume that the ashes resulting from burning manmade tires are far more toxic than burning wood, animal bones and fat inside the caves.

In regards to frivolous Law suits, attorneys love lawsuits, seriously I already mentioned before that the developers should start saving some money for litigation and Law suits. The litigation will come once somebody gets sick AFTER they open the plant.

Going back to the water pollution that from my point of view besides the ashes really is the major business, political and operational flaw in their application. I sometimes wonder if the developers, apparently some of the biggest fishes in Little Town pond, ever read the newspapers about droughts and water problems in other parts of the nation and the world.

Clean water will become the most expensive and most valuable resource as a commodity in the near future. Just to confirm my point about water. Our politicians in California just passed some new regulations trying to protect our fresh water supply. This year is expected to be the worst drought in California in the last 15 years.
Publius
July 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

I just read all the comments above, and went back to read again the news release published by the Housing Authority.

There’s one point everyone is missing — including Erie’s news media, which ignored the issue completely — and that is the fact that this tire plant is going to be situated in the midst of low-income people and people of color when it would not be allowed to be placed anywhere else.

If you read the Authority’s news release it says:

—

“The Authority will also file formal complaints with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding what it sees as a clear case of environmental justice because the plant’s location will disproportionately impact low-income Erie residents and people of color.

“If you read the application to DEP prepared by the developers (http://www.stopburningtires.com/resources.html) the plant will be a Title V major polluter that will emit a staggering amount of pollutants, including heavy metals and carcinogens, which will fall on low-income neighborhoods,” said Horan. “This is a pure and simple question of environmental justice,” he said.

“In their own application, they identify the plant as a major polluter. That’s all we have to know, folks,” he added.

Bishop Dwane Brock, Authority Treasurer, called the plans for the Tires-to energy plant “a travesty.”

“I don’t understand how this plant even became a consideration,” Brock said, referring to the planned placement of the plant on Erie’s East Side. “Just because people are low income does not mean they are low in value.”‘
—

Why is everyone ignoring the issue of social justice? That is why the Authority is getting involved in this thing, as you’ll see if you read the news release.

I’d bet, Heavy D, that if Authority residents were somehow forced to eat foods that gave them salmonella, the Authority would indeed take a stand on that.

Again, you’d never see this tire plant proposed for a white middle-class neighborhood in Erie County.

All here who live in the area where the tire plant is being built, list your names or aliases. No? None of you do? What? You’re all white middle/upper class folks? Gee, that’s a surprise. And that’s the point.
Stacey Grazier
July 7th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Way to go, John! Finally an Erie government employee has the balls to speak the truth about this horrendous idea.

Whether it’s the poor and disenfranchised or the well-off, everyone in Erie would suffer if this tire plant came to fruition.

Frankly, I am appalled Erie is even considering the plant for construction. Who in their right mind would actually fund this thing? In an economy where legitimate developers are having trouble financing deals – why would anyone such a lame-brained idea that will probably have so many emissions restrictions put on it by the EPA by the time it’s built that it’s just another abandoned factory on our shores. The plant is a chemical-spouting accident-waiting-to-happen; how’s that for a return on investment?

Not only would the “Erie Renewable Energy” (haha – a euphemism if I ever heard one) be an eyesore, a deterrent for tourism, and a symbol for the rest of the country’s stereotypical view of Erie (dirty industrial town on a polluted lake), but it would also be a vehicle for the release of potentially toxic chemicals into Erie’s air. Yep – just what Erie needs!

Whereas other cities are worried about retrofitting their buildings to be sustainable or LEED certified, Erie is trying to building the largest tire burning plant in the world. It literally blows my mind.

If this plant were to move forward, I would be truly disgusted. It would bring a whole new meaning to the misguided moniker, mistake on the lake. It’s the antithesis of what Erie, Pennsylvania needs at this critical juncture in our city’s future fate.

Does anyone know if Greg Rubino still lives in Erie? If so, I propose that everyone in Erie takes their old blown out tires and throws them on his front lawn. Let’s see how he likes it! I also think he should be publicly shunned. Maybe if his peers actually start standing up for their town he’d back down and not move forward with this. It’s so pathetic to me that this guy just wants to make a quick buck, at the expense of people’s health and the long term good.
Stacey Grazier
July 7th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

One more thing, I find it ironic that in such a Catholic town, there is such an environmental disaster being planned. Pope Benedict declared in March: “You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbor’s wife, but also by ruining the environment…”

Well, Greg, looks like your place in hell is secured!

In addition to old tires being thrown on his lawn and being shunned, maybe Mr. Rubino should also be excommunicated! HAHAHAH

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.

Recent Comments
The Latest

Outside Erie