Milton scolds ethanol execs

By STACY VOGEL ( Contact )   Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT
 

— United Ethanol CEO David Cramer said he came to Tuesday night's Milton City Council meeting to let Milton know the plant has been proactive in addressing problems.

But his presentation ended with scolding from several council members who said the plant has done just the opposite.

"How can you in good conscience sit there and run that plant knowing that you're in violation and putting that stuff in the air for people to breathe?" council member Tom Chesmore asked.

Chesmore was referring to a state Department of Natural Resources report that listed United Ethanol as violating emissions limits on nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (particle pollutions) and volatile organic compounds (pollutant gasses) after October 2007 testing.

A June report from the DNR says United Ethanol was out of compliance in 170 of its 370 permit items, including emissions violations.

But Cramer said the plant has moved aggressively in addressing the alleged violations, fixing some before the report was even released. Cramer, environmental consultant Dennis Hatfield and General Manager Mike Opdahl listed ways they say the plant has been proactive:

-- At least half of the alleged violations involved record keeping, Hatfield said. The plant didn't always realize how the DNR wanted records kept. It now follows the DNR's interpretation of record-keeping requirements even as it continues to "discuss" those requirements with the DNR, he said.

-- The plant is installing a new, $2 million regenerative thermal oxidizer. The new equipment should greatly reduce noise and odor, Opdahl said.

-- Plant officials have maintained an "extensive dialogue" with the DNR and neighbors, Hatfield said.

-- The plant is installing an electronic environmental management system to help it meet DNR requirements.

-- The plant quickly implemented a computerized preventative maintenance/work order system and continues to expand it.

Regarding emissions, the plant believes it never was out of compliance for volatile organic compounds, Cramer said. The plant disagrees with some DNR representatives about how the compounds should be counted, Hatfield said after the presentation.

"We have been in compliance with VOCs all along, or we would've shut the plant down," Cramer said.

But some council members questioned if the plant is doing enough for neighbors.

Both Chesmore and Maxine Striegl said they've gotten sore throats from spending time near the plant.

"I heard you people say ‘There will be no odors and no noise; we're going to be good neighbors,'" Striegl said. "I want to know when you're going to start."

Cramer said the plant never promised zero odors or noise, but the fact that it's spending $2 million on new equipment indicates that it wants to be a good neighbor.

He said the city should compare ethanol plant emissions to those of other industries. The General Motors plant in Janesville, for example, releases 10 times the emissions of the ethanol plant, he said.

Council member Lynda Clark said the city isn't giving the ethanol plant a fair chance to fix its problems.

"United Ethanol has done their testing; they are working diligently with the DNR; they're replacing what needs to be replaced," she said. "When was the last time any of our other industries were tested or scrutinized this heavily?…

"I can't sit here in good faith and let everybody totally beat up on this company, because I know there are other places we're getting emissions from."

NEW COUNCIL MEMBER

The Milton City Council's first order of business Tuesday was replacing council member Bill Lipke, who died in September.

The council approved the appointment of David Schumacher to the position.

Schumacher spent nearly 20 years on the council but lost a reelection bid in April. He will fill Lipke's position until April 2009.







reader COMMENTS (6)
sprout
Jun 20, 2009 at 1:37 a.m.
Suggest removal

Milton does not sound like a very business friendly city the last few years. Milton can't rely on Janesville for jobs anymore, maybe the city council should be happy with what they have and hope they don't lose any employers.

greengina8
Oct 9, 2008 at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal

I'm not sure why the asphalt company across the highway from the ehtanol plant is allowed to pollute the air when the ethanol plant is not. I'm almost positive the emissions from asphalt production are just as toxic as ethanol emissions.

Professor
Oct 8, 2008 at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal

I'm growing weary of the argument that just because a company has spent time and money, they get a pass. It's like politics: Promise everybody everything, counting on peoples' naivete' to accept whatever 'the big company (or politician) tells them' as the truth. Then, once they are elected (or, once they build the 'thing'), they can do what they want, because they know they virtually can't be shut down. "Beat up on the company..."??? Puh-lease!!!

mgmgrand
Oct 8, 2008 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal

You know what, bottom line is, everyone was excited to have an industry come to a small town. It would boost the economy and offer jobs. But no one actually sat down and figured out all the pros and cons. Yes there were some people that were totally against it. But this plant is on the outskirts of town and does not effect all of Milton.
.
We have many other industries in Rock County that pollute the air just as much, if not worse than United Ethanol. The example of GM is perfect. But we accept GM because it has been here for so many decades.
.
Give United Ethanol a timeline to complete fixing all the violations. It sounds like they are trying to fix everything. Give them a chance. Bottom line, they are not just going to walk out because a few people complain about the order in the air. They have invested WAY too much time and money.

Ernie
Oct 8, 2008 at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal

Exactly! I totally agree with you on that.

BayMom
Oct 8, 2008 at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal

I hope the people of Sharon, who thought that ethanol would bring them prosperity at no cost to their health and living conditions, are paying attention to what has happened in Milton -- and other small towns that have been sucked in by the ethanol companies.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT